DELIVERED  BEFORE 


THE  CEDAR  CREEK  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  N.  CAROLINA, 


On  Sunday,  September  lO,  1843. 


PASTOR  OF  TVIE  BAPTIST   CHURCH  Jtf  CHERAW,  SO.  CA. 

JOHN  STUBS,  PRINTER. 
1843. 


1 


1 


THE 


MODS 


-**•*•»"* 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM, 


TWO  DISCOURSES 


DEtrVKKED    BEFOaS 


THE  CEDAR  CREEK  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  NORTH  CAROLINA, 


On  Sunday,  Sep tember  10,  1843. 


,ZB"S*  IEa®H2^ai£)-IliWaiM^JE3,g 


FASTOR  OP  THE  BAPTIST  CHURCH  IN  CHEEAW,  SO.  CA. 


CHERAW: 
JOHN  STUBS,  PRINTER. 

1843. 


M 


o  v 


The  following  discourses  were  delivered,  and  are  now  published  at  the  urgent 
request  of  the  Cedar  Creek  Baptist  Church.  Prior  to  their  delivery  the  author 
had  no  thought  of  their  publication,  and  in  assenting  to  it  now,  he  yields  only 
to  the  solicitations  of  his  brethren.  They  were  not  prepared  for  the  press,  and 
therefore  in  style  they  are  plain  and  unpretending.  Many  portions  of  them  were 
entirely  extemporaneous,  but  the  author  is  persuaded  that  the  substance  is  the 
same,  the  arguments  are  the  same,  and  the  language  although  frequently  modi- 
fied, and  condensed,  is  essentially  the  same.  He  is  aware  that  many  hard  things 
have  been  thought  and  said  respecting  him,  since  the  delivery  of  the  sermons — 
mainly  because  he  has  proved,  or  attempted  to  prove,  that  infant  sprinkling  is  a 
relic  of  Popery.  These  persecutions  he  is  willing  to  endure  for  the  cause  of 
truth — he  is  fully  persuaded  of  the  correctness  of  his  positions — and  he  humbly 
eraves  in  behalf  of  his  labors,  the  prayers  of  his  brethren,  and  the  blessing  of 
God. 


j* 


HE  MODE  OF  BAPTIS 


"And  now  why  tarriest  thou?  arise  and  be  baptised." — Acts  xxii,  18. 

Every  part  of  the  truth  of  God  is  worthy  of  our  attention  and 
consideration.  He  is  our  Lawgiver,  and  King.  It  is  our  bounden 
duty  to  obey  his  precepts — And  our  first  and  great  question  ought 
to  be,  "Lord  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do?"  In  order  to  ascertain 
what  is  the  will  of  God,  it  is  necessary  that.we  should  search  dili- 
gently the  Scriptures,  that  we  should  turn  away  from  the  traditions 
of  men,  and  that  we  should  pray  for  the  enlightening  influences  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  If  all  christians^rere  to  pursue  this  course,  their 
discords,  dissentions,  and  jealousies  would  come  to  an  end,  they 
would  be  united  in  spirit,  and  in  action — and  as  there  is  one  Lord, 
so  there  would  be  one  faith,  and  one  baptism. 

I  arise  before  you,  my  Brethren,  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating 
an  institution,  venerable  from  its  antiquity,  sacred  from  the  charac- 
ter of  its  Author,  highly  important  in  its  object,  and  perpetually 
binding  in  its  observance.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  was  instituted 
upwards  of  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  object  of  baptism  is  a  figurative  representation  of  the  new  birth. 
And  the  perpetuity  of  baptism  is  taught  in  various  passages  of  Scrip, 
ture.  For  instance,  the  Saviour  says,  "He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptised,  shall  be  saved."  And  again  when  He  sent  forth  the  dis- 
ciples, and  gave  to  them  the  broad  commission  of  the  Gospel,  He 
said,  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptising  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

It  is  well  known  that  different  views  prevail  amongst  christians 
in  reference  to  the  subject  of  baptism.  Some,  (for  instance  the 
Quakers,)  reject  it  altogether.  Some  think  that  there  are  three 
different  ways  of  administering  the  ordinance,  by  immersion, 
sprinkling,  and  by  pouring.  But  there  is  one  denominatit 
contend  that  there  is  one  way,  one  solitary  mode  of  baptisir| 
that  by  immersion.     This  is  the  position  of  the  Baptist  dejj 


tion.  And  for  adhering  to  this  position  with  unwavering  tenacity 
they  have  been  despised  and  persecuted,  they  have  been  laughed  at 
and  ridiculed,  they  have  been  "the  sect  everywhere  spoken  against," 
for  many  years  and  for  many  ages.  But  they  have  nothing  to  fear. 
The  truth  is  great  and  will  prevail.  Their  doctrine  is  built  upon 
an  everlasting  foundation.  The  Word  of  God  is  the  standard  around 
which  they  rally  in  defence  of  the  truth.  They  unfold  that  stan- 
dard in  the  gaze  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  With  it  they  go 
forth  to  fight  the  battles  of  the  Lord.  And  with  it  they  are  nobly 
determined,  they  are  eternally  resolved  to  triumph  or  to  die. 

It  is  my  purpose  on  the  present  occasion  to  show  that  immersion 
is  the  only  christian  baptism,  and  that  it  is  contrary  to  all  true  criti- 
cism, and  to  the  plain  word  of  God,  to  introduce  sprinkling,  or  pour- 
ing, or  anything  else  into  the  place  of  immersion.  And  if  I 
can  prove  this  position,  if  I  can  convince  you  of  its  truth,  I  will  call 
upon  all  believers  here  present,  (who  have  not  submitted  to  the 
ordinance,)  in  the  language  of  my  text,  "why  tarriest  thou?  arise 
and  be  baptised." 

I  assert,  in  the  first  place,  that  all  true  criticism,  all  true  learning 
is  in  favor  of  immersion.     And  here  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to 

fo  to  the  original  Scriptures,  and  prove  from  them  the  truth  of  what 
affirm.  The  New  Testament,  you  are  aware,  was  originally 
written  in  the  Greek  language.  And  the  reason  is  obvious.  The 
Greeks  were  scattered  abroad  in  various  countries.  They  were  in 
many  respects  the  most  celebrated  nation  of  antiquity.  Wherever 
they  went  their  language  was  studied — and  it  soon  came  to  be  spoken 
more  than  any  other  language  in  the  world.  It  was  extremely  de- 
sirable that  the  Gospel  should  be  written  in  a  language  which  all 
men  could  understand  ;  and  therefore,  although  first  communicated 
to  the  Jews,  it  was  written  in  the  Greek  language.  Now  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptise  in  our  English  Testa- 
ments, it  is  necessary  that  we  should  go  to  the  Greek,  and  find  out 
its  true  import  in  that  language.  The  word  used  in  the  Greek  is 
Baptizo.  This  word  means  properly,  only  to  immerse — and  it  is 
the  only  word  which  occurs  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament, 
wherever  baptism  is  spoken  of.  There  is  another  Greek  word, 
Bapto,  which  is  sometimes  confounded  with  Baptizo,  by  persons 
who  are  not  propeily  acquainted  with  the  language.  But  they  are 
separate  and  distinct  words.  Bapto  is  the  primitive,  and  Baptizo 
the  derivative.  Bapto  is  the  root,  from  which  Baptizo  is  derived. 
Bapto  has  two  meanings,  the  primary  to  dip,  and  the  secondary 
e.  Baptizo  has  but  one  meaning,  to  immerse — and  as  I  have 
wdy  stated,  it  is  the  only  word  used  in  the  New  Testament  when 
is  spoken  of.     Now  if  the  sacred  writers  had  intended  to 

Urn*** 


5 

convey  the  idea  that  spi inkling  or  pouring  would  constitute  a  valid 
baptism,  they  certainly  never  would  have  used  a  word  which  signifies 
properly,  and  only,  to  immerse. 

The  Greek  language  abounds  in  words,  which  express,  or  indicate 
the  application  of  water  in  various  ways.  I  will  present  a  few  ex- 
amples.  Louo,  to  wash  the  person  of  an  individual.  Nipto,  to  rinse 
his  face,  hands,  or  feet.  Ekkeo,  to  pour  upon  him.  Breko,  to  wet 
or  moisten.  Raniizo,  to  sprinkle.  Neither  of  these  words  is  ever 
once  used  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  when  baptism  is  ad- 
verted  to.  As  I  have  before  stated,  baptizo  is  the  only  word  used — • 
and  baptizo  means  only  to  immerse.  On  this  point  the  controversy 
turns  ;  let  this  question  be  settled,  and  the  discussion  between  Bap- 
tists, and  the  advocates  of  sprinkling,  is  forever  at  an  end. 

As  recourse  is  generally  first  had  to  Lexicographers,  we  will  begin 
with  them.  Let  us  consult  some  Lexicons  which  I  have  with  me 
on  the  present  occasion.  Schrevelius  gives  the  following  meanings 
to  Baptizo:  baptizo  (to  baptise,)  mergo  (to  immerse,)  abluo  (to  wash 
away,)  Iavo  (to  wash). 

Groves,  "Baptizo,  to  dip,  immerse,  plunge;  to  wash,  cleanse, 
purify;  to  baptize:  to  depress,  humble,  overwhelm.  Baptizomai, 
to  wash  one's  self,  to  bathe,  to  sink,  faint,  be  dejected." 

Donnegan,  "Baptizo,  to  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid,  to  sub- 
merge,  to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate  ;  hence  :  to  drench  with  wine. 
Met:  to  confound  totally,  to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw.  Bebapiismais 
to  be  immersed." 

Robinson,  (Professor  at  Andover,  a  Presbyterian  Seminary.) 
"  Baptizo,  to  wash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse.  To  baptise,  immerse, 
administer  the  rite  of  baptism,  spoken  of  the  religious  institution  of 
that  name.     Metaph :  to  overwhelm,  oppress,  &c." 

The  primary  meaning  attached  to  Baptizo  by  each  of  these  Lexi- 
cographers,  is  to  immerse.  They  indeed  speak  of  washing,  cleansing 
and  purifying.  But  this  is  only  in  a  secondary  sense,  and  only  as 
a  consequence  of  immersion.  Baptizo  does  not  refer  to  the  cleansing 
or  purifying  process,  but  it  refers  entirely  to  mode.  When  an  object 
is  washed  or  cleansed  by  being  dipped  or  immersed,  Baptizo  is  used. 
But  when  it  is  washed  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  in  any  other 
•way,  Baptizo  is  never  used.  No  passage  has  been  found  in  the 
Classics  which  countenances  such  a  supposition — and  while  wo  re- 
spect the  opinions  of  Lexicographers,  our  ultimate  appeal  is  to  the 
language  itself.  Here  we  plant  ourselves,  and  here  we  stand  or 
fall.  While  therefore  we  admit  that  baptizo  may  be  used  in  refer- 
ence to  a  washing  that  is  performed  by  immersion,  we  deny  that  it 
is  used  in  reference  to  any  other  kind  of  washing.  I  am  convinced 
of  the  truth  of  the  position  taken  by  one  of  the  most  eminent  wn« 


6 

ters  on  this  subject ;  baptizo,  he  declares,  "always  signifies  to  dip ; 
never  expressing  anything  but  mode.'"'*  The  three  New  Testament 
Lexicographers,  Schleusner,  Wahl,  and  Bretschneider,  limit  bap- 
tism,  as  a  sacred  ordinance,  to  immersion. 

A  great  many  Greek  works  on  various  subjects  are  still  extant. 
In  these  works  Baplizo  is  used  frequently — and  it  is  always  used 
with  one  meaning,  to  plunge,  or  to  immerse.  I  have  indeed  heard 
of  one  passage,  which  persons,  unacquainted  with  the  language 
have  quoted,  and  said  that  Baptizo  there  means  to  sprinkle.  But 
they  are  mistaken,  as  I  will  proceed  to  show  you.  The  passage  to 
which  I  refer  is  taken  from  a  work  ascribed  to  Homer,  and  contains 
an  account  of  a  frog  which  was  killed  in  a  battle  with  some  mice, 
and  fell  into  a  lake.  The  passage  reads  thus,  Kappese  d'oud  ane- 
pneusen,  ebapteto  d'aimati  limne  porphureo,  and  this  is  the  transla- 
tion of  it ;  "  he  fell,  and  breathed  no  more,  and  the  lake  was  tinged 
with  purple  blood."  Now  it  so  happens  that  the  word  here  used  is 
not  bavtizo,  but  bavto.  I  have  already  shown  that  the  term  bapto 
means  to  dip  or  to  dye,  and  that  it  is  entirely  distinct  from  baptizo. 
It  is  therefore  particularly  unfortunate  that  our  friends  have  pitched 
upon  this  passage  to  sustain  their  views,  for  it  has  no  connexion 
with  the  subject.  And  when  it  is  brought  forward  in  favor  of 
sprinkling,  you  may  rest  assured  that  he  who  introduces  it  is  pro- 
foundly ignorant  of  the  language. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  if  the  sacred  writers  intended  to  teach 
that  immersion  was  the  only  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance, 
they  would  have  used  some  other  word,  in  the  place  of  Baptizo. 
And  pray,  what  is  that  word?  They  tell  us  dupto.  But  this  is  a 
mistake.  Dupto  is  derived  from  dumi  or  duo,  which  is  a  neuter 
verb.  It  means  properly  to  dive,  and  not  to  immerse.  It  is  an  act 
that  I  perform  as  it  regards  myself,  and  not  an  act  that  I  perform 
upon  another.  I  can  very  properly  say  that  I  will  plunge  or  immerse 
a  man — but  I  cannot  say  that  I  will  dive  him.  Such  a  use  of  the 
word  is  a  perversion  of  language,  and  therefore  ridiculous. 

I  have  stated  that  Greek  writers  always  use  Baptizo,  as  meaning 
to  immerse  ;  and  I  now  proceed  to  furnish  some  references  to  Greek 
writers,  in  proof  of  this  assertion. 

Polybius,  vol.  iii,  page  311,  applies  the  word  to  soldiers  passing 

*  This  is  the  ground  taken  by  Dr.  Carson  in  his  immortal  work  on  baptism — 
a  work  which  for  acuteness  of  criticism,  and  for  the  soundness  of  its  logical  de- 
ductions, is  unsurpassed.  The  author  ia  not  aware  that  any  attempt  has  been 
made  to  reply  to  Dr.  Carson — and  his  work  Btands,  an  enduring  monument  of 
the  genius  and  learning  of  its  author,  of  his  abilities  as  a  Philologist,  and  of  the 
unquestionable  truth  of  his  positions. 


through  water,  "immersed  (baptizomenoi,)  up  to  the  breast."  This 
could  mean  neither  sprinkling  nor  pouring — they  were  immersed  or 
plunged  up  to  the  breast. 

Strabo,  Book  xiv,  page  982,  applies  the  word  to  soldiers  marching 
a  whole  day  through  the  tide,  (baplizomenon,)  baptised  up  to  the 
middle. 

Porphyry,  page  282,  represents  the  sinner  as  baptised  up  to  his 
head,  in  the  Styx,  a  celebrated  river  in  hell.  (Baplizetai  mekri 
kephales.)  If  this  does  not  mean  immersion,  there  is  no  meaning 
in  it. 

Strabo  speaking  of  a  rivulet  in  the  southern  part  of  Cappadocia, 
informs  us  that  the  waters  are  so  buoyant  that  an  arrow  thrown  in, 
will  hardly  sink,  or  be  dipped,  (baptizesthai,)  into  them. 

Josephus,  in  his  History  of  the  Jewish  wars,  Book  ii,  page  752, 
says  of  a  man  who  murdered  himself,  that  he  dipped  or  plunged  the 
sword  up  to  the  hilt,  (ebaptise,)  in  his  own  bowels. 

The  same  writer,  Book  ix,  page  285,  speaking  of  a  ship  about  to 
sink,  says  that  it  was  about  to  be  baptised,  (baptizesthai.)  What 
was  the  mode  of  this  baptism  ? 

Dio,  page  84,  applies  the  word  to  the  sinking  of  ships.  "So 
great  a  storm  suddenly  arose  through  the  whole  country,  that  the 
boats  were  baptised  or  sunk,  (bapiisthenai,)  in  the  Tiber." 

Diodorus  Siculus,  Book  1,  page  33,  applies  the  word  to  the  sink- 
ing of  beasts  carried  away  by  a  river.  "  The  most  of  the  land  ani- 
mals being  caught  by  the  river,  sinking,  or  being  baptised,  (baptizo- 
mend)  perish  ;  but  some  escaping  to  the  higher  grounds  are  saved." 

Themistius,  Oration  iv,  page  133,  speaks  of  a  man  who  sinks  at 
sea,  as  being  baptised,  (baptisai.) 

Heraclides  Allegor  says,  "  When  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red  hot 
from  the  fire,  it  is  plunged,  (baptizetai%)  into  the  water. 

Plutarch,  vol.  x,  page  18,  speaks  of  a  man  plunging  himself, 
(baptizon,)  into  the  Lake  Copias. 

In  the  Septuagint,  2  Kings,  v  chap.  14  verse,  the  language  in 
reference  to  Naaman  is,  Kai  Jeatebe  Naiman,  Jcai  ebaptisato  en  to 
Iordane  eptakis.  "Naaman  went  down,  and  dipped  himself  seven 
times  in  Jordan."  The  signification  of  this  is  evident — nothing 
but  immersion  can  be  meant. 

Now  how  supremely  ridiculous  it  would  be  to  speak  of  sprinkling 
a  ship  into  the  sea,  or  sprinkling  an  arrow  into  the  river,  or  sprinkling 
a  piece  of  red  hot  iron  into  the  water,  or  sprinkling  a  man  into  a 
lake,  or  into  a  river  !  Such  language  as  this  would  excite  a  smile  of 
contempt  upon  the  face  of  every  man  of  common  sense.  And  I 
will  leave  you  to  determine  whether  it  is  at  all  less  ridiculous  to 
sprinkle  a  little  water  into  the  face  of  a  man,  and  say  that  he  is 
baptised. 


8 

I  might  furnish  many  other  quotations  from  Greek  writers,*  all 
substantiating  my  position.  But  the  time  will  not  admit  of  rny  do- 
ing so,  and  1  have  already  quoted  enough  to  show  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  According  to  these  writers  baptizo  means  to  immerse. 
This  is  its  literal  signification.  When  used  figuratively,  it  means 
to  overwhelm.  I  have  been  thus  particular  on  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject,  because  I  have  been  requested  to  instruct  the  people  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word,  and  because  it  has  been  said  in  a  sermon 
on  baptism,  recently  preached  in  this  section  of  country,  that  "  Mr. 
Fukman,  of  Cheraw,  has  said  that  baptizo  means  only  to  immerse, 
and  has  challenged  the  world  to  disprove  it."  My  hearers,  this  is 
literally  true.  I  have  said  it,  and  I  say  it  again.  In  Cheraw  I 
challenged  the  world,  and  here  at  Cedar  Creek  I  stand  up  in  the 
cause  of  truth,  and  I  again  challenge  the  world  to  disprove  what  I 
have  said.  I  call  upon  this  vast  multitude  to  bear  witness  to  what 
I  now  say,  I  am  but  a  worm  of  the  dust — unworthy  to  plead  in  so 
good  a  cause.  But  in  the  name  of  my  God  and  Redeemer,  I  am 
willing  to  appear  before  the  world.  It  is  the  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness  for  which  I  plead.  I  may  fall,  but  the  truth  shall 
stand.  I  may  die,  but  the  truth  shall  live  forever.  With  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God,  I  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the 
greatest  champions  of  infant  sprinkling — and  the  sling  of  Gospel 
truth,  though  wielded  by  never  so  weak  a  hand,  will  bring  Goliath 
to  the  dust.  "  The  race  is  not  to  the  swift,  nor  the  battle  to  the 
strong."  This  weak  and  infirm  body  will  socn  return  to  its  kin- 
dred dust — but  the  truth  for  which  I  plead,  is  destined  to  triumph 
even  in  this  world,  and  to  live  beyond  the  boundaries  of  time  in  im- 
mortal freshness  and  beauty ! 

Another  strong  argument  in  our  favor  is  that,  the  Greeks,  to  the 
present  day,  believe  in,  and  practise  immersion.  The  New  Testa- 
ment, as  you  have  been  already  informed,  was  first  written  in  their 
language — consequently  they,  of  all  men  upon  earth,  ought  to  un- 
derstand best  the  import  of  the  Greek  text,  A  gentleman  from  the 
United  Slates  once  asked  a  learned  man  in  Greece  the  signification 
of  baptizo.  He  replied  that  it  meant  baptizo.  The  American  re- 
quested an  explanation.  The  Greek  then  declared  that  he  knew 
of  no  meaning  to  baptizo,  but  one,  and  that  was  to  immerse.  The 
candidates  for  baptism,  in  the  Greek  Church  are  always  immersed.f 

*  The  reader  who  is  disposed  to  enquire  still  farther  into  the  subject,  is  referred 
lo  Carson's  work  on  baptism,  page  78 — 134,  where  it  is  thoroughly  discussed — 
the  distinctive  difference  between  bapto,  and  baptizo  is  clearly  shown — and  the 
srs«aning  of  baptizo  is  definitely  and  forever  settled. 

t  Wall's  Hist.  Infant  Baptism,  Vol.  ii,  page  376. 


9 

And  when  they  are  informed  that  thero  are  many  persons  in  this 
country,  and  in  other  countries,  who  sprinkle  and  pour,  instead  of 
immersing,  they  ridicule  the  thought.  The  Nesforian  christians  in 
Mesopotamia,  the  Armenians,  the  Jacobites,  the  Copts,  the  Abyssi- 
nians,  and  the  Georgians,  all  practise  immersion.*  Bossuet,  a  dis- 
tinguished French  preacher,  and  a  Pedo-baptist,  declares  that  for 
thirteen  hundred  years  after  Christ,  immersion  was  the  mode  of  ad. 
ministering  baptism  all  over  the  Christian  world,  except  in  cases  of 
necessity,  when  sprinkling  and  pouring  were  resorted  to.  Dr.  Wall, 
the  celebrated  champion  of  Pedo-baptism,  asserts  that  no  branch  of 
the  Christian  Church  has  changed  immersion  into  sprinkling,  but 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  those  Churches  which  have  de. 
rived  their  sprinkling  from  that  source.'}'  Here  you  have  the  origin 
of  sprinkling.  An  Episcopalian,  not  a  Baptist,  informs  you  that  it 
has  sprung  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  and  they  derived  it 
only  from  the  traditions  of  their  fathers.  Where  is  the  Pedo-baptist 
who  does  not  become  ashamed  of  sprinkling— the  offspring  of  such 
a  parent !  Oh,  are  you  not  willing  this  day  to  forsake  the  ceremony 
of  man's  appointment,  and  to  return  to  the  truth  of  God,  and  the 
ordinance  of  the  Gospel? 

I  can  inform  you  in  a  few  words,  how  sprinkling  came  to  be 
thought  of,  and  to  be  practised  amongst  christians  generally.  Two 
or  three  hundred  years  after  Christ  the  christian  church  had  become 
more  or  less  corrupt—errors  and  abominations  crept  in— false  doc- 
trines prevailed— and  amongst  others  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation,  a  belief  in  baptism  as  a  regenerating  and  saving  ordi- 
nance. Consequently  when  persons  were  taken  suddenly  sick,  it 
was  thought  that  if  they  could  be  baptised  they  would  be  saved- 
Sometimes  they  were  too  ill  to  be  immersed,  and  in  such  cases, 
pouring  or  sprinkling  was  regarded  as  a  valid  baptism.  The  samo 
motives  induced  parents  to  sprinkle  their  children,  who  were  weak 
and  infirm.  They  gradually  got  into  the  habit  of  sprinkling  them- 
selves— until  finally  sprinkling  prevailed  all  over  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  those  Churches  which,  as  Dr.  Wall  asserts,  have  de- 
rived their  sprinkling  from  that  source.  The  first  law  for  sprinkling 
was  obtained  from  Pope  Stephen  II,  by  the  monks  of  Cressy,  in  the 
year  7534     It  is  therefore  a  tradition  of  the  Roman  Church. 

All  readers  of  Ecclesiastical  History  know  that  a  little  upwards 
of  three  hundred  years  ago,  the  various  Reformed  Pedo-baptist 
Churches  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome.   Luther,  the  morn= 

"Hinton's  Hist.  Baptism,  page  130. 
tHiet.  Infant  Baptism,  Part  ii,  I  chap.,  ix* 
)  Edinburgh  Cyclopaedia,  Art.  Baptism. 
2 


10 

ing  star  of  the  Reformation — and  Melancthon,  and  Zwingle,  afad 
Calvin,  and  Cranmer,  and  Knox,  and  all  the  master  spirits  of  that 
glorious  age,  were  brought  up  Roman  Catholics.  The  Episcopal 
Church,  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  Presbyterian  Church,  were 
formed  of  Catholic  materials.  About  a  hundred  years  ago,  John 
Wesley,  and  Charles  Wesley,  and  some  others,  who  were  Episco- 
palians, formed  the  Methodist  Church — and  hence  it  is  called  to 
this  day,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  These  various  Churches 
are  therefore  sprung  either  directly  or  remotely  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  they  broke  the 
fetters  of  Popery,  and  nobly  proclaimed  the  glorious  doctrines  of  the 
Cross.  But  the  triumph  which  truth  then  achieved,  was  not  com- 
plete. These  Churches  are  still  agreed  in  the  practice  of'sprinkling, 
which  is  authorised  solely  by  the  traditions  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Oh,  my  Pedo. baptist  Brethren,  would  to  God,  your  eyes  were 
opened  upon  this  subject!  You  are,  unintentionally,  upholding  an 
anti  christian  church  hy  adhering  to  one  of  its  favorite  institutions. 
If  you  will  only  abandon  infant  sprinkling,  which  is  the  main  pillar 
of  Popery,  the  downfall  of  that  Hierarchy  will  he  hastened — Baby. 
Ion,  the  mother  of  abominations  and  of  harlots,  which  has  drunk 
the  blood  of  ten  thousand  saints  and  martyrs,  will  totter  and  fall 
from  her  lofty  throne — and  the  Gospel  of  Christ  will  extend  its 
mild  and  gentle  triumphs  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

The  admissions  of  eminent  Pedo-haptists,  as  to  the  meaning  of 
baptizo,  as  to  the  custom  of  the  first  Church,  and  as  to  the  origin  of 
sprinkling,  must  surely  be  regarded  as  a  strong  argument  in  favor 
of  Baptist  views.  Candid  and  learned  men  of  all  denominations 
have  always  admitted  that  the  Baptists  are  right  in  contending  for 
immersion,  as  the  original  mode  of  administering  christian  baptism. 
Our  opponents  themselves  are  the  judges,  and  they  are  obliged  to 
admit  that  we  are  right.  The  question  may  arise,  Why  then  do 
they  practise  sprinkling  and  pouring?  They  satisfy  themselves  as 
the  great  Calvin  did,  with  the  belief  that  the  Church  may  change  the 
mode  of  the  ordinance,  so  that  its  substance  is  retained.  The  fal- 
lacy of  this  argument  I  shall  endeavor  to  expose  in  its  proper  place. 
I  now  ask  for  special  attention,  while  I  refer  to  the  testimony  of 
some  eminent  men, — all  of  them  Pedo -baptists.  And  this  testimony 
I  regard  as  the  best  that  can  be  adduced,  excepting  the  testimony 
of  the  word  of  God. 

John  Calvin.*     "The  word  baptise  signifies  to  immerse,  and  the 
rite  of  immersion  was  observed  by  the  ancient  church." 

*  Institutes,  Lib.  v,  chap.  xv„ 


11 

Luther.*  "  The  term  baptism  is  a  Greek  word.  It  may  be  ren. 
dered  a  dipping,  when  we  dip  something  in  water,  that  it  may  be 
entirely  covered  with  water;  and  therefore  the  manner  of  baptism 
should  correspond  with  the  meaning  of  baptism." 

Beza.f  "Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptised,  by  which  word 
it  is  certain  immersion  is  meant." 

Salmasius.f  "Baptism  is  immersion,  and  was  administered  in 
ancient  times  according  to  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  word." 

Bossuet.f  "  To  baptise  signifies  to  plunge,  as  is  granted  by  all 
the  world." 

Archbishop  Tillotson.f  "Anciently  those  who  were  baptised, 
were  immersed  and  buried  in  the  water,  to  represent  their  death  to 
sin — and  then  did  rise  up  again  out  of  the  water,  to  signify  their 
entrance  upon  a  new  life." 

Dr.  Medcj-  "There  was  no  such  thing  as  sprinkling  used  in 
baptism  in  the  apostles'  days,  nor  for  many  ages  after  them." 

Dr.  Campbell, f  "The  word  baptise  both  in  sacred  writers  and 
classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse." 

Mosheim,  the  great  Ecc.  Historian,  "  The  sacrament  of  haptism 
was  administered  in  this,  (the  second  century,)  without  the  public 
assemblies,  in  places  appointed  and  prepared  for  that  purpose,  and 
was  performed  by  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal 
font."     See  Hist.  Cent.  II.  part  II.  chap.  iv. 

Bossuet.  "  We  read  not  in  Scripture  that  baptism  was  otherwise 
performed  than  by  plunging — and  we  are  able  to  make  it  appear, 
by  the  acts  of  councils,  and  by  the  ancient  rituals,  that  for  1300 
years  baptism  was  thus  administered  throughout  the  whole  church, 
as  far  as  was  possible."     Stennett  against  Russen,  page  175 — 176. 

The  celebrated  Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  notes  on  Romans  vi,  4, 
says,  "  it  being  so  expressly  declared  here  that  we  are  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water." 

Dr.  Wall.  "It  is  so  plain  and  clear  by  an  infinite  number  of 
passages  that  immersion  was  the  original  mode  of  administering 
the  ordinance,  that  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of  Pe- 
do. baptists  who  deny  it."  Hist.  Infant  Baptism,  Part  II.  page 
462. 

Bretschneider's  Theology,  Vol.  I,  page  684.  "The  apostolic 
church  baptised  only  by  immersion." 

Rheinwald's  Archasology,  page  303.  "Immersion  was  the  ori- 
ginal, apostolical  practice." 

*  Luth.  Op.  Vol.  I,  p.  336. 

t  Qooted  in  the  Bap.  Memorial  for  1843,  page  73. 


12 

Hahn'a  Theology,  page  5S8.  *«  According  to  apostolical  instruc* 
tion  and  example,  baptism  was  performed  by  immersing  the  whole 
man." 

Starck's  History  of  Baptism,  page  8.  "In  regard  to  the  mode 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  not  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immer- 
sion." 

Whitefield  in  hU  sermon  on  Romans  vi,  3,  4,  says,  "  It  is  certain 
that  in  the  words  of  our  text,  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  manner  of 
baptism,  which  was  by  immersion." 

Dr.  Bloomfield  in  his  critical  notes  on  Romans  vi,  4,  says, 
**  There  is  here  plainly  a  reference  to  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism 
by  immersion  ;  and  I  agree  with  Koppe  and  Rosenmuller  that  there 
is  reason  to  regret  it  should  have  been  abandoned  in  most  christian 
churches,  especially  as  it  has  so  evidently  a  reference  to  the  mystic 
sense  of  baptism." 

Professor  Stuart  declares,  "that  it  is  a  thing  made  out  that  im. 
mersion  was  the  ancient  practice."     Biblical  Repository,  for  1833. 

Dr.  Chalmers,  (of  the  Presbyterian  Church,)  the  most  popular 
living  preacher,  and  distinguished  as  a  theological  writer — says  in 
his  Lectures  on  Romans  vi,  "The  original  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism  is  immersion'*- — "  we  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent  style  of 
the  administration  in  the  apostle's  days,  was  an  actual  submerging 
of  the  whole  body  under  water." 

Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  will  be  regarded  as  an  excellent  witness 
by  many  here  present,  says  "  Mary  Welsh  aged  eleven  days  was 
baptised  according  to  the  custom  of  the  first  church,  and  the  rule  of 
the  church  of  England,  by  immersion."  Wesley's  Works,  Vol.  3, 
page  20. 

The  same  writer,  in  his  notes  on  Romans  vi,  4,  says  "Buried 
with  him,  alluded  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion."* 

I  have  stated  that  sprinkling  was  first  used  in  the  cases  of  the  sick 
—and  I  now  proceed  to  furnish  the  proof. 

*  The  author  is  aware  that  attempts  have  been  made  by  some  to  deny,  and  by 
others  to  explain  away  these  admissions  of  Wesley.  But  all  such  attempts  are 
of  no  avail.  It  matters  not  what  Wesley  says  in  other  parts  of  his  writings.  In 
the  passages  referred  to,  he  declares  positively  and  unequivocally,  that  immersion 
was  the  custom  of  the  first  Church — and  that  buried  with  him,  alludes  to  the 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion.  Wesley  has  long  been  in  his  grave, 
and  it  is  now  too  late  to  deny,  to  alter,  or  to  explain  away,  what  he  has  himself 
asserted,  without  adding  the  slightest  qualification  in  Connection  with  these 
declarations. 


13 

Salmasius.  "  The  clinics  only,  because  they  were  confined  to 
their  beds,  were  baptised  in  a  manner  of  which  they  were  capable— 
not  in  the  entire  laver,  as  those  who  plunge  the  head  under  water, 
but  the  whole  body  had  water  poured  upon  it."  Apud  Witsium, 
Oecon.  Foed.  L.  iv,  c.  xvi. 

Pamelius.  "Whereas  the  sick,  by  reason  of  their  illness,  could 
not  be  immersed,  (which  properly  speaking  is  to  be  baptised,)  they 
had  the  salutary  water  poured  upon  them,  or  were  sprinkled  with 
it."     Apud  Forbesium,  Instruct.  Hist.  Theo.  L.  x,  C.  v. 

Grotius.  "The  custom  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  seems  to  have 
prevailed  in  favor  of  those  who  were  dangerously  ill,  and  were  desi- 
rous of  giving  themselves  to  Christ — whom  others  called  clinics." 
Poole's  Synopsis  on  Matt,  iii,  6. 

Van  Coellen.  "Baptism  was  by  immersion:  only  in  cases  of 
the  sick  was  it  administered  by  sprinkling.  It  was  held  necessary 
to  salvation,  except  in  cases  of  martyrdom."  Hist.  Theol.  Opinions, 
vol.  I,  page  459. 

Rheinwald.     "  Baptism  was  administered  by  immersion,  only  in 

cases  of  necessity  by  sprinkling."   Christian  Archaeology,  page  302. 

Stroth's  Eusebius.     "  Baptism  was  administered  to  those  on  beds 

of  sickness,  by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  in  other  cases  it  was  at  that 

time  by  immersion."     Vol.  I,  page  .506. 

In  the  English  Episcopal  Prayer  Book,  they  are  commanded  to 
dip  the  child — but  if  it  is  certified  that  it  is  weak  or  infirm,  they  are 
then  permitted  to  sprinkle  and  pour.     See  English  Prayer  Book. 

Du  Fresne's  Latin  Glossary,  on  the  word  clinici.  "  From  the 
custom  of  baptising  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  the  sick,  who  could  not 
be  immersed,  (which  is  properly  baptism,)  was  introduced  the  cus- 
tom which  now  prevails  in  the  Western  Church." 

Neander.  "Only  with  the  sick  was  there  an  exception,"  in  re- 
gard to  immersion.    Vol.  I,  page  361. 

Geisler.  "  For  the  sake  of  the  sick  the  rite  of  sprinkling  was  in- 
troduced."    Geisler's  Ch.  Hist.  vol.  ii,  page  274. 

From  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses,  it  appears  that  immersion 
was  practised  in  the  ancient  church,  and  that  sprinkling  was  intro. 
duced  for  the  sake  of  the  sick,  from  a  mistaken  opinion  as  to  the  re- 
generating and  saving  influence  of  baptism.  What  more  could  we 
possibly  ask  for  than  this  ?  It  is  an  unanswerable  vindication  of  the 
truth.  Our  cause  is  triumphant,  my  Brethren.  Our  opponents 
themselves  are  the  judges,  and  they  admit  all  that  we  would  ask,  all 
that  we  could  desire.  Here  we  have  the  united  testimony  of  Pres- 
byterians,  Episcopalians,  Lutherans,  Methodists,  and  Roman  Catho- 
lics. They  cannot  deny  the  truth.  They  are  obliged  to  admit  it. 
With  a  voice  louder  and  longer  than  a  thousand  thunders*,  they  cry 


14 

out,  "immersion,  immersion,  immersion !!"— and  that  voice  will 
continue  to  cry,  until  infant  sprinkling  ia  torn  from  its  popish  foun- 
dations, crumbles  into  the  dust,  lies  exposed  in  all  its  hideousnesa 
and  deformity,  and  is  swept  as  with  a  besom  of  destruction  from  the 
faco  of  the  world  ! 

There  is  a  historical  fact  of  importance,  frequently  lost  sight  of, 
in  discussions  on  the  subject  of  baptism — and  it  is  this,  the  existence 
of  fonts  and  baptisteries  in  ancient  churches.  It  seems  that  they 
began  to  be  erected  some  time  in  the  third  century.  The  object 
of  their  erection  was  to  afford  facilities,  in  large  towns,  and 
cities,  for  baptising,  which  was  then  done  by  immersion.  *'  Baptis- 
teries," says  Mr.  Robinson  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  "are  first  to 
be  sought  where  they  are  first  wanted,  in  towns  and  cities ;  for  writers 
of  unquestionable  authority  affirm,  that  the  primitive  christians  con- 
tinued to  baptise  in  rivers,  pools,  and  baths,  till  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century.  At  this  time  baptisteries  began  to  be  built."* 
Will  any  advocate  of  sprinkling  presume  to  say  that  these  fonts,  and 
baptisteries — these  large  reservoirs  of  water  were  built  to  afford  con- 
veniences for  sprinkling  ?  Surely  not.  And  I  agree  with  a  respect- 
able writer  in  the  following  sentiment,  "  I  take  the  fact  to  be 
established,  so  far  as  the  history  of  baptisteries  bears  upon  the  point, 
which  it  does  with  irresistible  force,  that  the  practice  of  dipping  was 
not  only  usual,  but  considered  necessary,  except  in  particular  cases 
arising  from  danger  of  death,  or  other  special  circumstances,  for 
thirteen  centuries  after  Christ,  throughout  all  countries  where  any 
form  of  Christianity  existed."  Hinton's  History  of  Baptism,  page 
182. 

From  the  considerations  presented,  I  think  it  evident  that  history, 
and  true  criticism  are  in  favor  of  immersion,  as  the  primitive  mode 
of  administering  the  christian  ordinance.  We  now  proceed  to  no- 
tice some  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  baptism  is 
spoken  of.     And  let  us  begin  with  the  baptism  of  John. 

It  is  sometimes  denied  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  christian 
baptism — and  it  seems  that  the  argument,  mainly  insisted  on,  in 
this  section  of  country,  in  favor  of  such  a  position,  is  drawn  from 
the  xixth  chap,  of  Acts;  where,  (it  is  affirmed,)  "Paul  rebaptised 
certain  disciples,  because  they  had  submitted  to  John's  baptism, 
which  was  not  valid."  The  correctness  of  this  affirmation,  I  deny. 
There  is  no  positive  proof  that  (hey  were  actually  rebaptised.  It  ia 
not  at  all  impossible,  nor  improbable,  that  the  5th  verse  is  the  Ian- 

*  See  Robinson's  Hist.  Baptism,  page  58,  where  he  refers  to  the  following 
learned  writers  on  the  subject  of  baptisteries,  Paullus  Paciadius,  Walafidius 
Strabo,  Joan  Durant,  Josephus  Vicecomes,  Bingham,  &c,  &c. 


15 

guage  of  Paul,  in  reference  to  those  who  heard  the  preaching  of 
John.  In  the  4th  verse  he  says,  "John  verily  baptised  with  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  be- 
lieve  on  him  which  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus." 
■  And  then,  in  the  next  verse  he  says,  (as  I  maintain.)  respecting  the 
people  who  came  to  John,  "When  they  heard  this  they  were  bap- 
tised in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  sacred  writer  adds,  in 
the  6th  verse,  "And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the 
Holy  Ghost  came  on  them."  Learned  men  differ  in  their  views  on 
this  passage.  Some  think  that  these  disciples  were  rebaptised,  and 
others  that  they  were  not.  The  language  may  be  construed  either 
way.* 

But  even  if  we  admit  that  these  disciples  were  baptised  again,  it 
will  not  destroy  the  validity  of  John's  baptism.  When  Paul  met 
them  he  enquired  whether  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  They 
replied,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy 
Ghost."  It  seems,  then,  that  they  had  received  no  instruction  in 
reference  to  (his  matter.  John  had  long  since  been  put  to  death. 
They  had  been  baptised,  in  all  probability,  by  some  of  his  disciples, 
who  had  failed  to  impart  that  instruction  which,  we  are  (aught,  John 
gave  to  the  multitudes  who  sought  his  baptism.  In  the  iii  chap,  of 
Matthew,  11th  verse,  John  said  to  the  people,  "I  indeed  baptise 
you  with  water  unto  repentance:  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  [am  not  worthy  to  bear:  he  shall  bap- 
tise  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  Here  it  is  evident  that 
John  taught,  the  people  respecting  the  effusions  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  disciples  mentioned  in  the  xix  of  Acts,  declared  that  they  had 
never  heard  of  a  Holy  Ghost. — and  it  is  therefore  certain,  that,  if  they 
were  baptised  again,  it  was  not  because  of  the  invalidity  of  John's 
baptism,  but  it  was  because  they  had  not  been  prcperly  instructed 
by  John's  disciples,  who  baptised  them  in  the  first  instance. 

The  limits  of  this  discourse  will  not  permit  me  to  go  into  the  argu- 
ment, and  lam  therefore  compelled  only  to  throw  out  a  few  conside- 
rations, tending  to  show  the  identity  of  christian  baptism  with  the 
baptism  of  John.  John  came  as  the  forerunner  of  Christ.  He 
preached  unto  the  people  that  they  should  repent  of  their  sins,  and 
believe  on  Him  who  was  to  come,  that  is,  on  Christ.  And  hence 
his  baptism  is  styled  the  baptism   of   repentance.      Christ   says, 

*  Since  delivering  this  discourse  the  author  has  been  happy  to  find  his  views 
advocated  by  so  able  and  learned  a  Pedo-baptist  Divine  as  Calvin.  He  says, 
"  For  myself,  I  grant  that  the  baptism  they  had  received,  was  the  true  baptism 
of  John,  and  the  very  3ame  with  the  baptism  of  Christ;  but  I  deny  thai  they 
were  baptised  again."    Calvin's  Institutes,  vol.  ii,  page  133. 


16 

(Matt,  xi,  12,  13.)  "From  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  no^ 
the  kingdom  of  heaVen  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by 
force.  For  all  the  prophets  snd  the  law  prophesied  until  John.'* 
This  clearly  teaches  us  that  John  came  as  the  harbinger  of  a  new 
dispensation— and  that  could  have  been  no  other  than  the  dispensa# 
tion  of  the  Gospel.  The  dispensation  of  the  law  and  tho  prophets 
was  at  an  end,  and  John  preached  repentance,  and  baptised,  point- 
ing to  a  Divine  Redeemer,  who  was  speedily  to  make  his  appearance. 
Mark  introduces  his  Gospel  with  these  words,  uThe  beginning  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God."  He  then  adverts  to 
the  prophecies  respecting  John,  and  proceeds  to  describe  his  appear- 
ance  in  the  wilderness,  his  preaching  repentance,  and  his  baptising 
the  people  in  the  river  Jordan.  The  inference  to  which  we  are  na- 
turally led,  is  that  John  was  sent  to  prepare  and  open  the  way  for 
the  Christian  dispensation — and  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  in 
reality,  the  beginning  of  christian  baptism.  In  Acts,  chap,  xviii, 
verse  25,  we  have  an  account  of  Apollos,  a  converted  Jew,  an  elo- 
quent man,  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures.  "This  man  was  in- 
structed in  the  way  of  the  Lord  ;  and  being  fervent  in  the  Spirit, 
be  spake  and  taught  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only 
the  baptism  of  John."  It  appears  that  Apollos  became  an  able  and 
faithful  minister  of  the  New  Testament.  But  there  is  no  account 
of  his  ever  being  rebaptised — and  this  is  satisfactory  evidence  that 
the  baptism  of  John  which  was  the  only  baptism  he  had  known,  was 
regarded  by  the  apostles  as  valid. 

Matthew  introduces  to  us  the  forerunner  of  Christ,  in  these  words, 
"In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist."  This  language  is  definite 
and  expressive — It  i«  not  John  the  Sprinkler,  nor  John  the  Pourer — 
but  it  is  John  the  Baptist.  The  expression  in  Greek  is  Joannes  }o 
Baptistes—and  the  correct  translation  is,  John  the  Immerser.  In 
the  German  translation  of  the  Bible  it  is  rendered  der  Tauffer,  the 
Dipper. 

"  Then  went  out  unto  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,  And  were  baptised  of  him  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins."  (Matt,  iii,  5,  6.)  This  is  plain  language. 
They  could  not  be  sprinkled  in  Jordan  ;  they  could  not  be  poured 
in  Jordan.  How  then  were  they  baptised  ?  They  were  simply  im-s 
mersed.  The  people  came,  and  were  immersed,  or  plunged  by  John 
in  Jordan.  This  makes  sense  of  the  passage,  and  it  can  have  no 
other  meaning. 

"John  also  was  baptising  in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there 
was  much  water  there  ;  and  the  people  came  and  were  baptised." 
(John  iii,  23.)  Here  is  a  text  that  has  ever  stood  forth  in  bold  relief, 
notwithstanding  all  tho  false  interpretations  that  have  been  heaped 


17 

upon  it.  Our  Pedo-baptist  friends  have  generally  contended  that 
much  water  was  needed  for  the  camels,  and  other  animals  of  those 
who  resorted  to  the  baptism  of  John.  But  the  text  tells  us  nothing 
about  camels.  The  Evangelist  is  speaking  not  about  animals,  but 
about  baptism.  We  do  not  know  whether  the  people  who  went  to 
be  baptised  by  John,  carried  any  animals  with  them.  But  suppose 
we  admit  that  they  did — If  much  water  was  needed  for  the  animals, 
much  corn  and  provender  were  also  necessary — for  it  is  evident 
that  they  could  not  live  upon  water  alone.  And  yet  the  scriptures 
are  silent  upon  this  point.  It  is  therefore  a  gratuitous  assumption — 
and  it  only  shows  to  what  an  absurd  refuge  the  advocates  of  error 
will  resort,  in  the  absence  of  argument.  John  baptised  in  Enon. 
Why?  Because  there  was  much  water  there.  Why  was  much 
water  needed  ?  In  order  that  he  might  immerse  the  people.  I 
cannot  conceive  how  a  candid  and  conscientious  man  can  interpret 
the  language  above  quoted  in  any  other  way. 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  we  have  an  account  of  the  bap. 
tism  of  Christ.  John  administered  the  ordinance  on  that  memorable 
occasion — and  our  Redeemer,  by  submitting  to  the  baptism  of  his 
forerunner,  clearly  and  unequivocally  proclaimed  its  validity.  If 
Christ  was  satisfied  with  the  baptism  of  John,  it  is  certainly  incom- 
patible  with  christian  humility,  and  with  the  reverence  due  to  the 
Son  of  God,  for  us  to  raise  questions,  and  to  entertain  doubts  re- 
specting it. 

It  is  affirmed  by  some,  that  Christ  submitted  to  baptism,  in  com- 
pliance  with  a  custom  that  prevailed  amongst  the  Jews,  of  washing 
their  priests — and  not  as  an  example  for  his  followers.  This  is  the 
theory  of  Adam  Clarke — and  his  advocacy  of  it  has  given  it  ex- 
tensive prevalence  in  the  denomination  of  which  he  was  a  member. 
It  is  the  offspring  of  a  vigorous  imagination — it  is  a  theory  totally 
destitute  of  proof — and  it  is  equally  repugnant  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  dishonoring  to  the  Son  of  God.  He  was  not  a  priest  after  the 
order  of  Aaron,  but  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec.  He  was  not 
descended  from  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  from  the  tribe  of  Judah.  He 
therefore  did  not  belong  to  the  family  of  the  priests;  and  it  would 
have  been  a  violation  of  the  ceremonial  law  for  him  to  have  par. 
taken  of  any  of  the  cercmonie3  peculiar  to  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
The  Jewish  priests  were  indeed  washed  when  they  were  inducted 
into  office,  and  also  when  they  came  near  to  the  altar  to  minister. 
(See  Exodus  xxx,  20.)  And  why  were  they  thus  washed  ?  "  That 
they  die  not"  Here  was  the  reason.  They  were  themselves  frail 
and  infirm  men.  They  needed  an  atonement  for  their  own  sins, 
and  in  token  thereof  they  were  washed.  But  Jesus  had  no  guilt  to 
wash  awav.  He  was  the  pure  and  spotless  Lamb,  "  who  taketh 
3 


away  the  sins  of  the  world."  And  when  he  entered  upon  his  min- 
istry as  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  it  was  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  dignity  of  his  character,  and  with  the  principles  of  his  Gos- 
pel, for  him  to  receive  the  washing  of  a  Jewish  priest  ! !  But  the 
word  of  God  settles  this  matter.  "  He  is  made  an  high  priest  for- 
ever after  the  order  of  Melchizedec."  We  nowhere  read  that  Mel- 
chizedec  was  washed.  And  why  should  Jesus  be? — "  For  the  priest- 
hood being  changed,  there  is  made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the 
law.  For  he  of  whom  these  things  are  spoken,  pertaineth  to  another 
tribe,  of  which  no  man  gave  attendance  at  the  altar.  For  it  is  evi- 
dent that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah :  of  which  tribe  Moses 
spake  nothing  concerning  priesthood.  And  it  is  yet  far  more  evi- 
dent :  for  that  after  the  similitude  of  Melchizedec,  there  ariseth 
another  priest,  who  is  made,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  command' 
meni,  but  after  the  poiver  of  an  endless  life."  (Hebrews  vii,  12  to 
16th.)  The  apostle  then  proceeds  to  say  that  those  priests  were 
made  without  an  oath  ;  but  this  Priest  with  an  oath,  for  the  Lord 
sware,  "  Thou  art  a  Priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec." 
Here  the  distinction  is  clearly  marked.  Christ  is  the  High  Priest 
of  God — as  such  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  ceremonial  rites  of 
the  House  of  Levi— and  the  theory  of  Dr.  Clarke  contradicts  the 
Scriptures,  and  dishonors  and  degrades  the  incarnate  Redeemer, 
by  making  him  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron  ! 

If  it  be  asked,  why  Jesus  was  baptised  ?  I  answer,  that  he  might 
set  an  example  for  his  people.  He  instituted  baptism  as  the  rite  of 
initiation  into  the  christian  church — and  when  he  was  baptised  he 
said,  "  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  It  is  some- 
times said  "that  Christ  is  not  a  proper  example  for  us — he  is  so 
pure,  so  perfect,  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  imitate  him."  I  ad- 
mit that  we  can  never,  never,  attain  to  anything  like  the  perfection 
of  his  character,  and  the  purity  of  his  life — and  yet  he  is  our  exam- 
j)le.  Christians  are  called  his  disciples.  They  are  commanded  to 
deny  themselves,  take  up  their  crosses,  and  follow  him.  And  Peter 
expressly  declares,  "  Christ  also  suffered  for  us,  leaving  us  an  exam- 
ple that  ye  should  follow  his  steps."  (First  Peter  ii,  21.)  As  a 
denomination  we  have  never  laid  claims  to  christian  perfection — but 
we  have  always  believed  that  the  Son  of  God  is  the  great  Exemplar 
of  christians — and  although  we  fall  short  of  the  mark,  and  never 
imitate  him  as  we  should,  we  rejoice  that  we  are  enabled  to  follow 
him  into  the  water,  to  be  buried  with  him,  in  baptism  ;  and  thus  to 
proclaim  to  the  world,  our  veneration  for  his  example. 

"And  Jesus  when  he  was  baptised,  went  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water."  (Matt,  iii,  1G.)  I  have  never  yet  met  with  the  man 
who  presumed  to  say  that  Christ  was  sprinkled  or  poured— -and  with 


19 

this  passage  staring  him  in  the  face,  I  tremblo  for  that  man  who 
dares  to  make  such  an  assertion.  "  He  went  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water."  This  clearly  implies  that  he  went  down  into  the  water. 
For  what  purpose  did  he  go  down  into  the  water  ?  To  have  a  little 
of  it  sprinkled  into  his  face,  or  poured  upon  his  head  ?  This  is  ab- 
surd— and  those  who  will,  may  believe  it.  I  put  the  question  to 
your  hearts  and  consciences  this  day,  and  ask,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  how  dare  you  to  give  such  an  unmeaning  interpretation  to 
his  holy  word  ?  Of  all  the  hundreds  and  thousands,  in  this  country, 
and  in  other  countries  who  have  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon,  not 
one,  (within  my  knowledge,)  has  gone  down  into  the  water  to  have 
it  done.  And  why  should  it  be  said  that  the  Saviour  did?  Away 
with  such  pitiful  quibbling  !  away  with  such  a  barefaced  and  child- 
like trifling  with  the  word  of  God  ! !  See  your  meek  and  lowly 
Lord  descending  into  the  baptismal  stream,  and  bowing  beneath 
the  wave,  "  an  emblem  of  his  future  grave."  After  his  immersion, 
behold  him  coming  "  up  straightway  out  of  the  water"— and  then, 
Oh  believer,  "  why  tarriest  thou?  arise  and  be  baptised." 

The  language  in  Acts  ii,  41,  is  often  quoted  as  though  it  favored 
the  views  of  those  who  practise  sprinkling.  "  Then  they  that  gladly 
received  the  word,  were  baptised,  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  Now  it  ie  thought 
that  there  would  have  been  some  difficulty  in  immersing  so  many 
in  the  course  of  a  single  day.  But  this  difficulty  exists  only  in  the 
imaginations  of  our  Pedo-baptist  Brethren.  It  requires  no  longer 
time  to  immerse  men  and  women  than  is  consumed  ia  the  sprinkling 
of  babes.  "  I  speak  that  I  do  know,  and  I  testify  that  I  have  seen." 
Some,  in  an  indiscreet  zeal,  have  invented  a  huge  broom  for  the  use 
of  the  administrator  on  the  occasion  under  consideration.  Standing 
on  the  margin  of  the  stream  he  is  supposed  to  have  dipped  his  be- 
som into  the  water,  and  after  pronouncing  the  baptismal  words,  to 
have  waved  it  over  the  heads  of  the  surrounding  multitude  !  And 
this  was  baptism  !  Alas,  alas !  when  we  abjure  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  word  of  God,  into  v/hat  mazes  of  inconsistency,  and  absurdi- 
ty are  we  destined  to  wander!  A  letter  has  been  recently  written 
by  a  Baptist  minister,  in  which  he  states  that  he  immersed  thirty-two 
persons  in  a  little  more  than  seven  minutes.  He  then  enters  into  a 
calculation  and  shows  that,  in  the  same  ratio,  he  could  have  im- 
mersed the  three  thousand  in  ten  hours.  But  there  is  no  use  for 
such  a  construction  as  this.  There  were  twelve  apostles,  besides 
seventy  disciples  sent  forth  to  preach  the  Gosoel.  If  only  the  twelve 
apostles  baptised,  they  could  have  immersed  the  three  thousand  ia 
the  course  of  one  or  two  hours.  But  if  in  addition  to  them,  the 
seventy  also  baptised,  the  immersion  of  that  great  multitude  could 


20 

have  been  easily  accomplished  in  from  ten  to  twenty  minutes.  It 
is  therefore  to  be  hoped  that  this  passage  will  never  again  be  men. 
tinned,  when  sprinkling  is  advocated. 

In  Acts  viii,  38,  39,  is  contained  the  account  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Eunuch.  When  the  Eunuch  professed  faith  in  Christ,  and 
Philip  consented  to  baptise  him,  ''he  commanded  the  chariot  to 
stand  still,  and  they  both  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  :  and  he  baptised  him.  And  when  they  were  come 
up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  Philip  away,  so 
that  the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more;  and  he  went  on  his  way  re. 
jnicing."  This  language  needs  neither  note  nor  comment.  It  can- 
not  be  made  plainer — It  explains  itself,  and  it  will  preach  immersion 
to  the  end  of  lime.  It  it  be  objected,  as  it  sometimes  is,  that  the 
Greek  prepositions  eis  and  ek  are  here  improperly  translated,  into 
and  out  of :  I  reply  first,  thai  ihe  English  bible  is  not  a  Baptist  ver- 
sion. It  was  translated  by  Pedo-baptists — under  the  influence,  and 
according  to  the  directions*  of  &  Peclo-baptist  king,  who  was  strongly 
in  favor  of  sprinkling,  and  endeavored  to  promote  it  in  his  domiu. 
ions.  These  translators  indeed  transferred  the  Greek  word  baptizo, 
and  thus  left  it  without  its  English  meaning.  But  when  they  came 
to  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  they  could  not  do  violence  to  their 
consciences  by  mistranslating  the  Greek  prepositions — it  was  neces. 
sary  for  them  to  say  either  what  was  true,  or  what  was  false— and 
like  candid  and  honest  nten,  they  gave  to  each  word  its  proper  sig- 
nification— eis,  into:  ek,  out  of.  But  again;  these  prepositions 
are  not  only  thus  rendered  by  Peclo-baptist  translators,  but  it  would 
be  contrary  to  their  proper  and  primary  signification,  for  them  to 
be  rendered  in  any  other  way,  in  the  connection  in  which  they  are 
here  used.  If  eis  does  not  signify  into,  and  ek,  out  of,  then  no 
■words  will  be  found  in  the  Greek  language  to  convey  these  ideas. 
But  I  will  refer  to  unexceptionable  testimony.  "  Eis — the  primi. 
tive  meaning  of  this  preposition  is  into,  and  hence  ii  takes  the  accu. 
sative,  this  case  expressing  that  towards  which  anything  approaches 
or  tends,  and  into  which  it  enters,  or  penetrates."  "  Ek — ibis  pre. 
position,  in  its  original  meaning,  is  employed  only  in  reference  to 
such  objects  as  proceed  from  the  interior  <»f  another  object,  or  fro;r> 
the  most  intimate  connection  with  it."  ( A nthon's  edition  of  Valpy'rf 
Greek  Grammar,  page  208,  209.)  Anthon's  Valpy  is  a  standard 
work — and  all  Grammarians  and  Lexicographers  of  note,  will  be 
found  to  agree  in  the  views  above  expressed.  The  use  of  eis  and 
ek  in  the  Classic  writers,  clearly  fixes  their  meaning,  and  abundant 
examples  might  be  adduced  to  show  that  they  signify  literally  and 

a  Tfeesa&i  Fulkr'i  Clrareh  Hiss,  ef  Britain,  Book  ar4  page  4S. 


21 

properly,  into,  and  out  of.  It  is  evident  then,  that  the  Eunuch 
went  down  into  the  wafer — -that  he  was  immersed,  (if  baptizo  means 
only  to  immerse,  as  I  think  I  have  proved) — and  that  after  his  im- 
mersion  he  came  up  out  of  the  water.  May  the  Lord  open  your 
eyes  to  see,  your  ears  to  hear,  and  your  hearts  to  receive  the  truth 
which  is  here  so  plainly  taught! 

It  is  believed  by  many  that  the  baptism  of  the  Jailer,  (Acts  xvi, 
S3,)  was  administered  in  his  house.  But  a  careful  examination  of 
(he  scriptural  account  of  that  event,  will  lead  to  a  different  conclu- 
sion. When  the  Jailer  was  awakened  by  the  earthquake,  he  sprang 
inlo  the  prison  with  a  li<:ht.  and  brought  out  the  prisoners.  Paul 
and  Silas  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  him,  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  house;  he  then  washed  (heir  stripes;  and  after  baptism  had 
been  performed,  he  brought  them  inlo  his  house,  and  set  meat  before 
them.  &c.  From  this  statement  it  appears  that  Ihey  were  first 
brought  out  of  the  prison  into  (he  house,  where  they  preached  to  the 
family.  And  inasmuch  as  they  returned  into  the  house  after  the 
baptism,  it  is  a  very  natural  inference  that  they  went  out  for  the 
purpose  of  attending  to  that  ordinance. 

In  Mark  vii,  4,  baptizo  is  used.  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the 
Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft  eat  not,  holding  the  traditions 
of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market  except  they 
wash  they  eat  not."  The  word  first  used  here  is  niplo,  to  wash  by 
rinsing  or  pouring — the  second  is  baptizo,  to  wash  by  bathing,  or 
immersing.  The  former  is  confined  to  the  washing  of  the  hands— - 
the  latter  seems  to  refer  to  the  bathing  or  immersion  of  the  whole 
body.  The  Jews  regarded  themselves  as  polluted  when  they  re. 
turned  from  market,  and  it  was  natural  for  them  to  resort  to  the 
bath  for  purification.  I  here  yive  the  testimony  of  Maimonides,  an 
old  and  learned  Jewish  wriler,  as  quoted  by  Lightfoot  in  his  Com. 
on  Matt,  iii,  6 — "Wheresoever  in  (lie  law.  washing  of  the  body  or 
garments  is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  washing  of 
the  whole  body.  For  if  any  wash  himself  all  over,  except  the  very 
top  of  his  little  finder,  he  is  si  II  in  his  un cleanness."  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse  wo  are  considering,  Mark  siys  that  the  Pharisees 
hold  ••  the  washing  of  cup-',  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
Bap'ismos  is  the  word  (hit  occurs  in  the  Greek  text,  and  it  ought 
to  he  translated  immersion.  I  again  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Mai- 
inonides,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gill  on  this  passage — "In  a  lavcr  they 
dip  all  unclean  vessels.  If  he  dips  the  bed  in  the  pool,  although  the 
feet  are  plunged  in  the  thick  clay  at  the  bottom  of  the  pool,  it  is 
clean."  This  is  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  these  verses—and  it 
also  explains  Mark  vii,  8,  and  Hebrews  ix,  10. 


Let  us  now  direct  our  retention  to  some  ea3C9  of  the  figurative 
use  of  baptism  in  the  new  Testament.  And  first,  the  baptism  spoken 
of  in  1st  Corinthians  x,  1,  2.  "Moreover  brethren  I  would  not  ye 
should  be  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloUd, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptised  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea."  The  opposers  of  immersion  attempt 
to  give  these  verses  such  an  interpretation  as  to  make  them  mean 
that  the  people  were  sprinkled  by  the  cloud  and  the  sea.  But  such 
an  interpretation  destroys  the  beauty  of  the  figure,  and  is  an  evident 
perversion  of  its  meaning.  The  Israelites,  when  they  departed  from 
the  land  of  Egypt,  were  eagerly  pursued  by  the  Egyptians.  In 
their  hasty  flight  they  approached  the  Red  Sea,  which  lay  in  their 
way,  and  opposed  their  progress.  But  at  the  command  of  Moses 
the  waters  separated,  and  a  path  was  opened  through  the  very  depths 
of  the  Sea.  The  children  of  Israel  descended  into  the  deep.  The 
waters  arose  like  walls  on  their  two  sides — the  cloud  spread  over 
them  like  a  broad  and  impenetrable  canopy — and  they  were  em- 
phatically hurled  from  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians.  And  this  was  a 
figurative  immersion,  my  Brethren.  They  were  immersed  in  the 
cloud,  and  in  the  sea — and  yet  they  passed  through  dry-shod.  Do 
you  ask,  how  this  was  possible?  I  reply,  they  went  down  to  the 
depths,  the  very  bottom  of  the  Sea — the  waters  surrounded  them — 
but  the  baptism,  the  immersion,  was  not  complete  until  the  cloud 
overshadowed  them- — and  then  they  were  entirely  concealed  from 
the  sight  of  mortal  men.  Here  is  a  most  beautiful  figure,  and  here 
is  an  illustrious  type  of  christian  baptism. 

In  Luke  xii,  50,  the  Saviour  says,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  bap- 
tised with  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished."  He 
here  had  reference  to  the  sufferings  through  which  he  was  to  pass. 
Now  what  a  poor  and  inadequate  conception  of  those  sufferings 
would  the  figure  of  sprinkling  give  us!  Suppose  he  had  said,  "I 
have  a  sprinkling  of  sufferings  to  be  sprinkled  with."  Where  would 
have  been  the  force,  where  would  have  been  the  propriety,  where 
would  have  been  the  meaning  of  such  language  as  this?  If  it  con- 
veyed any  meaning  at  all,  it  would  have  been  this  that  he  had  but 
very  little  to  endure — He  was  only  to  be  sprinkled  with  a  sprinkling 
of  sufferings  !  But  how  different  the  meaning  when  the  language 
is  varied — "I  have  an  immersion  of  sufferings  to  be  immersed,  or 
overwhelmed  with."  This  figure  presents  the  most  vivid  picture 
of  the  sufferings  of  Jesus.  He  was  plunged  in  grief;  he  was  over- 
whelmed  with  woe.  And  when  an  immersion  of  sufferings  is  spoken 
of,  we  know  what  it  means.  We  have  immediately  before  our  eyes 
his  sufferings  in  the  garden,  when  he  sweat  as  it  were  great  drops 
of  blood— and  his  overwhelming  agonies  upon  the  cross; — when 


23 

hts  groans  shook  the  foundations  of  the  world  ;  when  fhe  rocks 
were  rent  throughout  the  vast  dominions  of  nature  ;  when  darkness, 
deep  and  gloomy,  brooded  over  the  face  of  the  world  ;  when  the 
vail  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain,  and  the  bodies  of  the  dead 
awoke  from  their  long  slumbers;  when  the  angelic  host  looked 
down  upon  Calvary  in  silent  sorrow;  when  the  cruel  spear  was 
thrust  into  his  side  ;  when  he  bowed  his  head,  and  in  all  the  agonies 
of  the  dying  struggle,  exclaimed,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me  ?"  We  are  ready  to  say  with  the  christian  poet, 
"Oh  Lamb  of  God,  was  ever  grief, 
Was  ever  love  like  thine  ?" 

In  view  of  all  this,  is  there  a  man  in  this  vast  assembly  who  will 
stand  up  and  say  that  Christ  was  sprinkled  with  a  sprinkling  of 
sufferings? — If  there  is  such  an  one  here,  I  call  upon  him  to  arise 
and  show  himself.  I  wish  to  see  him.  He  is  a  wonder  in  creation. 
And  he  ought  to  be  held  up  as  an  everlasting  spectacle  to  angels,  to 
men,  and  to  devils  ! 

I  will  give  you  but  one  more  example  from  Holy  Writ.  It  is  in 
Romans  vi.  4,  5.  "Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead,  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  I  have  often 
thought  that  if  this  were  the  only  reference  in  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  for  the  life  of  my  soul,  I  could 
not  resist  it — it  would  be  enough,  amply  enough  to  make  me  a  Bap- 
tist all  the  days  of  my  life.  Here  we  have  an  example  of  the  typi- 
cal meaning  of  baptism.  It  represents  the  believer's  death  to  sin, 
and  his  resurrection  to  a  new  and  holy  life — both  which  are  fitly 
and  beautifully  set  forth  by  his  burial  under  the  water,  and  his  re- 
surrection therefrom.  The  apostles  says,  "Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him" — by  sprinkling?  No.  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him" — by  pouring?  No.  "Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him" — 
by  immersion  ?  Yes,  my  hearers  ;  that  is  plain  common  sense,  and 
that  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  sacred  writer.  "  We  are  buried 
with  him  by  immersion  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life." — What  is  the  signification  of  the  word 
bury?  Does  it  mean  to  sprinkle?  No.  Does  it  mean  to  pour? 
No.  Does  it  mean  to  immerse?  Most  unquestionably — When  an 
object  is  immersed  it  is  temporarily  buried.  To  use  a  familiar  illus- 
tration— If  you  take  a  coffin  to  a  grave  that  has  been  prepared  for 
its  reception,  and  sprinkle  upon  one  end  of  it  a  handful  of  earth, 


24 

can  you  say  mai  it  has  been  buried?  Certainly  not.  And  if  yoiJ 
take  a  little  water  into  your  hand,  and  sprinkle  it  into  the  face  of  a 
man,  can  you  say,  with  truth,  that  he  has  been  buried  7  Reason 
says  not — common  sense  says  not — the  world  says  not — and  an 
indignant  Universe  would  arise  against  you,  and  convict  yon  of  a 
gross  and  palpable  untruth.  The  Bible  declares  that  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism:  and  yet  yon  sprinkle  men,  and  women,  and 
children,  and  publish  to  the  world  that  ihey  arc  baptised  !  Wonder 
oh  heavens,  and  be  astonished  oh  earth  !  ! 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  establish  the  signification  of  bapiizo, 
to  show  the  origin  of  sprinkling,  and  to  present  the  plain  teaching 
of  the  Bible,  in  reference  to  baptism — I  now  proceed  to  expose  the 
futility  of  the  reasons  which  prevent  many  from  submitting  to  chris- 
tian  baptism. 

1.  A  very  common  excuse  is  that  (he  mode  is  not  material — there 
is  nothing  in  mode — and  if  water  is  applied  in  any  wav,  it  is  bap- 
tism. This  is  an  excuse  that  is  offered  by  hundreds  and  thousands, 
who  admit  that  immersion  is  the  proper,  and  the  most  ancient  mode. 
But  such  reasoning,  however  specious  it  may  seem,  is  unsound.  I 
pronounce  it  to  be  rotten  at  the  very  core,  and  untrue  from  beginning 
to  end.  In  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  (so  far  as  the  administration 
is  concerned,)  mode  is  everything.  Destroy  the  mode,  and  you  de- 
stroy the  baptism.  I  have  already  proved  that  Bapiizo  means  only 
to  immerse — consequently  if  you  have  not  been  immersed,  you 
have  not  been  baptised.  There  is  no  possible  way  of  jiotlin<j  out  of 
the  difficulty.  There  is  no  authority  for  administering  this  ordi- 
nance  in  three  different  ways.  The  assumption  that  there  i«,  is 
contrary  to  the  legitimate  meaning  of  the  Greek  term  designating 
baptism — it  is  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  as  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  ancient  ecclesiastical  history — and 
it  is  contrary  to  the  frequent  allusions  made  by  the  sacred  writers 
to  the  symbolical  meaning  of  baptism.  An  Apostle  declares  that 
there  is  "one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism" — and  if  that  baptism 
be  immersion,  it  follows  that  without  immersion,  there  is  no  baptism. 
But  let  us  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the  position  of  our  opponents 
is  true,  that  the  mode  is  not  material ;  and  see  to  what  monstrous 
absurdities  it  will  lead.  One  is  immersed,  and  he  is  baptised — an- 
other has  water  poured  upon  him,  and  he  is  baptised— another  is  be- 
sprinkled,  and  he  is  baptised — another  applies  his  foot  to  some 
water,  and  he  is  baptised — another  moistens  his  finger  in  a  basin, 
and  he  is  baptised — another,  in  an  unaccountable  freak,  applies  a 
drop  of  water  to  the  tip  of  his  nose,  and  he  is  baptised  !  It  makes 
no  difference  at  all :  there  is  nothing  in  mode  :  every  one  has  a  right 
to  his  own  opinion  as  to  the  way  of  submitting  to  the  ordinance  : 


25 

and  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  that  water  should  be  applied  in 
some  way  or  other,  to  be  determined  entirely  by  the  predilections 
or  prejudices  of  individuals  ! — Thus  you  might  have,  not  only  three, 
but  an  hundred  different  baptisms,  when  the  Bible  declares  that 
there  is  "one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  Your  principles,  my 
hearers,  inevitably  lead  to  this.  They  are  therefore  untenable  and 
unscriptural  ;  and  they  ought  to  be,  and  must  be  abandoned,  sooner 
or  later. 

In  controversies  on  this  point,  reference  is  sometimes  made  to 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  it  is  maintained  that  as 
some  christians  celebrate  that  institution  kneeling,  and  others  sit- 
ting,  so  they  may  submit  to  baptism,  either  by  being  sprinkled  or 
immersed.  But  the  cases,  (so  far  as  the  mode  of  observing  the  or- 
dinances is  concerned,)  are  by  no  means  analogous.  The  illustra- 
tion is  therefore  unhappily  chosen,  and  proves  nothing.  The  essence 
of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  consists  in  eating  the  bread, 
and  drinking  the  wine.  The  essence  of  baptism  consists  in  a  bu- 
rial beneath  the  water,  and  a  resurrection  therefrom.  If  an  indi- 
vidual sits  at  the  communion  table,  and  takes  a  piece  of  bread,  and 
has  a  little  wine  poured  into  his  band,  wiihout  eating  and  drinking, 
he  has  not  partaken  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  in  like  manner, 
although  an  individual  has  water  applied  to  his  body,  in  a  thou- 
sand different  ways,  if  he  has  not  been  immersed,  he  has  not  been 
baptised.  Paul  declares  that  "  we  are  buried  with  Him" — that  is, 
Christ — "  by  baptism."  I  therefore  repeat  what  I  have  said  : 
in  the  administration  of  baptism  mode  is  everything.  Baptizo 
means  only  to  immerse.  Candid  and  learned  men  of  all  denomi- 
nations admit  that  the  apostles,  and  the  early  christians  prac 
tised  immersion.  I  have  proved  this  day,  by  the  testimony  of  un- 
impeachable witnesses,  that  sprinkling  originated  some  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  and  derives  its  authority  from  a  law  of  the 
Roman  Church.  It  is  therefore  an  ordinance  of  man.  Choose 
you  this  day  which  you  will  obey,  the  commandments  of  man,  or 
the  commandments  of  God.  God  says,  "one  baptism."  Man  says, 
"  three  baptisms."  God  says,  "  be  immersed" — for  that  is  the  im- 
port of  baptizo.  Man  says,  "  you  may  be  immersed,  or  sprinkled, 
or  poured."  Here  they  are  directly  at  variance.  And  I  call  upon 
you  to  determine  whom  you  will  obey,  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  in 
view  of  that  great  and  soiomn  day,  when  you,  and  I,  and  all  man- 
kind shall  stand  before  the  Sovereign  Lord  and  Judge  of  the  Uni- 
verse ! 

2.  It  is  objected,  as  I  have  been  informed,  in  this  region,  that  the 
Baptists  by  their  views,  wjchuieh  all  other  denominations  of  chris- 
iiaus.  What  do  you  meau,  my  hearers,  bv  juiehurching  other 
4 


26 

christians  ?  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  we  deny  to  them  the  charac* 
ter  and  the  claims  of  the  children  of  God — that  we  exclude  them 
from  amongst  the  number  of  his  people — and  that  we  do  not  believe 
that  they  will  ultimately  form  a  part  of  the  church  triumphant  in 
heaven?  If  these  are  your  views,  you  are  vastly  mistaken.  But 
if  you  mean  by  unchurching  them,  simply  to  say  that  we  deny  that 
they  have  been  baptised — that  we  deny  that  they  have  been  intro- 
duced into  the  visible  church  by  the  proper  rite  of  initiation — Why 
then  it  is  the  truth.  It  is  scriptural  truth.  It  is  eternal  truth.  We 
would  be  recreant  to  our  principles  as  christians,  if  we  dared  to  deny 
it;  and  we  would  be  worthy  of  everlasting  contempt,  if  we  were 
ashamed  or  afraid  to  stand  before  the  world,  and  to  contend  for  it 
with  our  latest  strength,  and  our  dying  breath. 

But  whatever  signification  you  are  pleased  to  attach  to  the  term 
unchurching,  it  will  not  properly  apply  in  the  present  case.  It  is 
not  the  Baptists  who  unchurch  other  denominations,  but  they  un- 
church themselves.  We  do  not  deny  to  them  the  privilege  of  obey. 
ing  their  Lord  and  Master,  but  they  deny  it  to  themselves.  We  do 
not  prevent  them  from  being  baptised,  but  they  prevent  themselves. 
We  are  not  unwilling  for  them  to  go  along  with  us,  in  obedience  to 
the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Gospel — so  far  from  being 
unwilling,  we  long  to  have  their  company.  But  they  do  not  regard 
our  solicitations  ;  they  turn  off  in  another  direction  ;  they  practise 
a  ceremony  which  I  have  proved  this  day  to  be  an  ordinance  of 
man.  And  because  we  dissent  from,  and  condemn,  this  departure 
from  Scriptural  precept  and  example,  you  accuse  us  of  unchurching 
all  other  denominations  of  christians!  The  charge,  you  therefore 
perceive,  is  unfounded,  it  is  uncharitable,  it  is  unkind — and  it  will 
be  made  only  when  no  better  argument  can  be  found.  We  respect 
and  love  our  brethren  of  other  denominations.  We  long  for  the  time 
to  come  when  these  differences  shall  cease.  And  we  rejoice  in  the 
assurance  that  in  heaven  we  shall  all  think,  and  see,  and  feel  alike. 
For  the  sake  of  peace  and  union  amongst  christians,  I  am  willing  to 
meet  them  on  any  ground,  and  to  make  any  sacrifice,  short  of  the 
Word  of  God.  But  as  long  as  that  is  in  the  way,  I  can  never,  never, 
yield  my  principles,  nor  abandon  my  position  as  a  christian,  and  as 
a  Baptist.  If  we  are  ever  united,  we  must  be  united  in  the  truth — 
for  a  union  not  sanctified  and  cemented  by  the  principles  of  the 
Gospel,  can  neither  be  acceptable  to  God,  nor  profitable  to  us.  This 
is  a  subject  that  merits  the  serious  consideration  of  our  Pedo-baptist 
brethren.  On  the  one  hand,  they  admit  that  immersion,  as  prac- 
tised by  the  Baptists,  is  right — equally  valid,  with  any  other  mode. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  contend  that  sprinkling  and  pouring,  as 
practised  by  them,  are  wrong.     Now  let  (hem  abandon  sprinkling 


'4i 

and  pouring,  to  which  we  object— and  practise  immersion,  to  which 
they  have  no  objection.  And  thus  as  it  regards  an  important  ordi- 
nance of  the  Lord's  house,  we  can  all  be  united,  in  what  we  all  be« 
lieve  to  be  the  truth.  Until  this  point  is  gained,  we  must  remain 
disunited  ;  and  as  a  denomination,  I  suppose  we  will  be  still  charged, 
however  unjustly,  with  wnchurching  other  christians. 

3.  It  is  frequently  urged  that  immersion  is,  in  some  cases,  a 
dangerous,  and  at  ail  times,  an  indecent  ordinance.  As  to  the  danger 
of  immersion,  I  am  so  far  entirely  ignorant.  It  has  been  my  privi- 
lege in  the  course  of  my  short  life,  to  witness  the  immersion  of 
many  hundreds  of  happy  converts,  and  I  have  never  seen  an  hair  of 
their  heads  injured  by  the  act.  I  have  heard  of  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands,  who  have  followed  their  Lord  by  immersion  into  the 
liquid  grave — and  I  never  yet  haveiieard  of  one  whose  life  has  been 
destroyed,  or  endangered  by  that  humble,  and  holy  act.  The  Lord 
has  thus  stamped  it  with  the  mark  of  His  approbation,  and  pro- 
claimed to  the  world  that  it  is  His  ordinance.  There  may  indeed 
be  danger  connected  with  the  immersion  of  a  helpless  infant,  or  of 
a  man  lying  at  the  point  of  death.  But  as  a  denomination,  we  have 
never  believed  in  baptismal  regeneration — and  we  are  firmly  per- 
suaded that  baptism  cannot  benefit  an  unconscious  babe,  nor  can  it 
save  a  dying  man. 

As  to  the  indecency  and  indelicacy  of  immersion,  it  is  passing 
strange  that  such  language  as  this  should  be  permitted  to  escape 
from  the  lips  of  a  man  professing  the  christian  religion.  It  may  do 
for  a  skeptic  or  a  blasphemer  to  use  such  an  argument  as  this  ;  but 
that  it  should  be  uttered  by  christian  men,  in  this  christian  land — 
"tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Ashkelon." 
Whatever  God  appoints,  cannot  be  indecent :  whatever  God  com- 
mands, cannot  be  indelicate  ;  and  the  man  who  savs  that  it  is,  is  but 
a  step  above  the  blasphemer.  Under  the  Mosaic  Dispensation  if 
a  Jew  had  pronounced  the  rite  of  circumcision  to  be  indecent,  he 
would  have  been  stoned  or  thrust  through  with  a  dart.  And  what 
shall  become  of  him,  who,  in  the  clearer  tight  of  the  Gospel,  pro- 
nounces an  ordinance  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  be  indecent  and 
indelicate?  We  say  as  the  Lord  did  to  Peter,  on  that  day  when 
He  let  down  the  provisions  from  heaven,  and  when  Peter  was  dis- 
posed to  regard  them  as  common  and  unclean — "What  the  Lord 
hath  sanctified,  call  not  thou  common,  or  unclean  !"  But  this 
charge  of  indecency  and  indelicacy  is  egregiously  misapplied.  The 
ordinance  of  immersion  is  full  of  solemnity,  of  beauty,  of  dignity, 
and  of  sublimity.  It  is  an  appropriate  emblem.  It  is  a  delightful 
act  to  the  administrator,  and  to  the  candidate — and  a  most  impres- 
sive scene  to  those  who  are  assembled  as  spectators.     I  have  never 


28 

witnessed  that  holy,  heavenly,  Christ-like  ordinance  without  feel- 
ings  of  deep  solemnity,  and  of  joyful  interest.  Many  are  the  tears 
that  have  been  shed  around  the  baptismal  waters.  Many  impeni- 
tent sinners  have  been  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a  new  and 
spiritual  birth,  thus  beautifully  illustrated.  And  many  christians 
have  had  their  bosoms  filled  with  joy;  and  have  been  wont  to  ex- 
claim with  the  Psalmist,  "  Oh  that  I  had  the  wings  of  a  dove,  for 
then  would  I  fly  away,  and  be  at  rest !" 

4.  Many  excuse  themselves  from  submitting  to  this  ordinance, 
because  a  great  many  good  and  learned  men  have  lived  and  died, 
without  ever  being  immersed.  This  is  true  ;  but  it  proves  nothing. 
The  fact  of  many  good  and  learned  men  having  sactioned  and 
adopted  any  particular  practice,  does  not  render  that  practice  obli- 
gatory upon  us,  nor  does  it  prove  it  to  be  in  accordance  with  the 
will  of  God.  The  best  of  men  are  liable  to  error — the  best  of  men 
have  erred — and  if  we  satisfy  ourselves  with  following  their  example, 
irrespectively  of  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel,  the  Lord  only  knows 
where  our  errors  will  end.  The  argument  we  are  now  considering, 
amounts  substantially  to  this — A  great  many  good  and  learned  men 
have  done  wrong,  and  therefore  I  will  do  wrong.  A  great  many 
good  and  learned  men  have  violated  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel,  and 
therefore  I  will  violate  them.  A  great  many  good  and  learned  men 
have  despised  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  I  will  de- 
spise it.  A  great  many  good  and  learned  men  have  not  been  Bap- 
tists, and  therefore  I  will  scorn  to  be  a  Baptist.  A  great  many  good 
and  learned  men  have  been  Quakers,  and  therefore  I  will  be  a 
Quaker.  A  great  many  good  and  learned  men  have  been  Roman 
Catholics,  and  therefore  I  will  be  a  Roman  Catholic  !  Now  what 
language  would  this  be  for  a  christian  to  use !  Why,  my  hearers, 
a  christian  in  his  right  mind,  could  net  utter  such  language.  Wo 
are  commanded  to  call  no  man  master  upon  earth.  One  is  our 
Master,  even  Christ — and  we  are  bound  only  to  obey  His  commands, 
and  to  follow  His  example.  The  moment  we  give  up  the  Word  of 
God  for  the  doctrines  of  good  and  learned  men,  and  take  them  for 
our  patterns  instead  of  Christ — that  moment  we  renounce  our  al- 
legiance to  the  King  of  heaven,  we  are  serving  man  instead  of  the 
Lord,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  fear  that  we  shall  fall  into  the 
condemnation  of  the  devil.  Are  j'ou  a  Baptist  because  Bunyan 
was  a  Baptist?  Are  you  a  Presbyterian  because  Calvin  was  a 
Presbyterian?  Are  you  an  Episcopalian  because  Wall -was  an 
Episcopalian?  Are  you  a  Methodist  because  Wesley  was  a  Meth- 
odist? The  Lord  in  mercy  forbid  !  If  this  is  the  case  with  any  of 
us,  we  have  but  little  ground  to  hope  that  we  shall  be  saved.  It  is 
not  Bunyan,  nor  Caivin,  nor  Wall,  nor  Wesley,  who  is  to  be  our 


29 

final  judge — they  were  all  men  of  like  passions  with  ourselves,. 
But  we  are  to  be  judged  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  our  reception 
or  rejection  of  His  truth,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel.  And  there- 
fore  I  call  upon  you  to  forsake  the  traditions  of  men.  Tear  your- 
selves  away  from  their  skirts.  Come  up  to  the  mark,  as  it  is  set 
before  you  in  the  Bible.  Behold  Christ,  your  glorious  pattern ! 
See  the  example  which  He  has  left — and  then,  Oh  christian  friend 
and  brother,  "why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be  baptised." 

5.  There  are  many  christians  who  acknowledge  that  immersion 
is  the  true  and  scriptural  mode  of  baptism,  and  who  never  comply 
with  this  requisition  of  the  Gospel,  because  of  the  opinions,  the 
wishes,  and  the  prejudices  of  their  relatives  and  friends.  Such  an 
excuse  might  be  admissible  in  things  pertaining  to  this  world — but 
it  will  not,  cannot  be  admitted  in  things  pertaining  to  the  service  of 
God,  and  to  that  world  which  is  to  come.  The  bonds  by  which  we 
are  united  to  our  earthly  friends  and  connexions,  last  only  during 
our  continuance  upon  earth.  It  is  praiseworthy,  when  we  seek  to 
please  them,  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God.  But  when  we 
neglect  our  duties  to  God,  when  we  disobey  the  precepts  of  the  Gos- 
pel, in  order  to  gain  their  approbation,  we  are  assuming  a  responsi- 
bility under  which  an  Archangel  would  tremble.  In  matters  of  re- 
ligion we  are  personally  and  individually  responsible  to  God.  To 
Him  we  must  account  for  our  violations  of  truth  and  duty.  And  by 
Him  we  shall  be  acquitted  or  condemned.  The  opinions  and  the 
wishes  of  others,  will  not  be  received  in  the  day  of  judgment,  as  an 
excuse  for  our  delinquency.  The  faith  of  the  parent  will  not  suffice 
for  the  child,  nor  will  the  faith  of  the  child  suffice  for  the  parent. 
Every  one  must  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind — and  every 
one  must  act  from  his  individual  convictions  of  duty.  In  coming  to 
a  decision  on  this  important  subject,  it  does  not  become  us  to  enquire 
whether  our  fathers  were  Baptists  or  Pedo-baptists.  It  does  not  be- 
come us  to  yield  to  the  influence  of  early  impressions  and  associa. 
tions  ;  it  does  not  become  us  to  consult  the  wishes  and  the  prejudices 
of  our  most  intimate  relatives  and  frienfJs,  who,  however  loved  and 
venerated  they  may  be,  are  yet  frail  and  fallible,  like  ourselves. 
The  great  question  to  be  asked  and  answered,  is  this,  What  is  the 
tcill  of  the  Lord?  That  will  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  Therefore, 
*'  to  the  word  and  to  the  testimony" — and  from  the  lids  of  this 
blessed  volume  you  will  learn  your  duty.  And  when  you  have  as- 
certained the  Divine  will,  there  must  be  no  hesitancy — no  delay. 
You  must  run  in  the  way  of  the  Lord's  commandments — and  if  it 
it  is  necessary,  cut  off  the  right  hand,  and  pluck  out  the  right  eye. 
If  you  look  upon  baptism  as  a  cross,  and  if  obedience  will  involve 
grea   self-denial,  hesitate  not  to  make  the  sacrifice ;  endure  the  self- 


30 

denial ;  take  up  the  cross ;  and  follow  your  Divine  Redeemer  through 
evil,  as  well  as  through  good  report !  The  Saviour  says,  '"  He  that 
loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me:  and  he 
that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me.  And 
he  that  taketh  not  his  cross,  and  followeth  after  me,  is  not  worthy  of 
me.  He  that  findeth  his  life,  shall  lose  it:  and  he  that  loseth  his 
life,  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it."  There  have  not  been  found  wanting, 
men,  who  have  made  these  sacrifices:  who  have  endured  the  cross, 
despising  the  shame  :  who,  after  having  lived  many  years  in  the  ne- 
glect of  duty,  have  been  brought  to  acknowledge  their  error — have 
become  dissatisfied  with  the  sprinkling  they  received  in  infancy — 
and,  contray  to  their  early  and  long-cherished  impressions,  contrary 
to  the  wishes  of  their  friends,  contrary  to  their  worldly  interests, 
have  followed  their  Saviour  doim  into  the  water  of  baptism.  We 
can  point  to  many  worthies  of  past  generations,  who  have  thus  tes- 
tified that  truth  was  dearer  to  them  than  life.  We  can  point  to  the 
Carsons,  the  Haldanes,  the  Judsons,  the  Chapins,  and  the  Jewetts, 
of  the  present  generation — whose  conscientiousness  will  be  ques- 
tioned by  none,  whose  lives  are  devoted  to  the  interests  of  religion, 
and  whose  praise  is  in  all  the  churches.*  We  exhort  you  this  day, 
to  follow  their  example.  Yea,  rather,  follow  the  example  of  your 
Saviour  !  Remember  what  He  sacrificed  for  you.  Remember  the 
bruised  head,  the  bleeding  hands,  the  wounded  side.  Remember 
Gethsemane  and  Calvary! — and  then,  if  thou  believest  with  all 
thine  heart,  "  why  tarriest  thou  1  arise,  and  be  baptised  !" 

And  now  I  beseech  you,  to  consider  calmly,  and  dispassionately, 
the  arguments  that  have  been  presented.  The  word  Baptizo  is  used 
by  all  the  classic  writers  of  antiquity,  in  one  sense,  to  plunge,  or  to 
immerse.  In  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  Baptizo  is  the  only 
word  used  to  designate  baptism.  Pious  and  eminent  men  of  various 
denominations  acknowledge  that  the  apostles  immersed,  and  that 
immersion  was  practised  by  the  early  Church,  for  several  hundred 
years.  Pedo  baptist  writers  of  the  greatest  distinction,  admit  that 
sprinkling  was  introduced  two  or  three  centuries  after  Christ,  in  the 
cases  of  sick  persons,  who  were  otherwise  called  clinics.  History 
attests  the  existence  of  Fonts  ahd  Baptisteries  in  ancient  churches, 
in  which  candidates  for  baptism  were  immersed.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  Scriptures  that  favors  sprinkling,  even  in  the  remotest  sense — 
on  the  contrary  they  plainly  teach  that  baptism  consists  in  a  burial 

*  The  Pastor  of  this,  (the  Cedar  Creek)  Church,  now  in  the  meridian  of  life, 
in  the  course  of  his  ministry  has  immersed  six  hundred  persons,  who  were  at 
the  time  connected  with  Pedo-baptist  churches.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this? 
Surely  it  is  one  of  tho  signs  of  the  times. 


31 

beneath  the  water,  and  a  resurrection  therefrom.  If  these  things 
be  so,  Men,  Brethren,  and  Fathers,  it  is  evidently  your  duty,  as  the 
children  of  God,  as  the  disciples  of  Christ,  to  arise,  and  be  baptised. 
"  I  speak  as  unto  wise  men — judge  ye."  You  cannot  excuse  your- 
selves from  the  performance  of  this  duty,  on  the  ground  that  the 
mode  is  not  material — that  by  maintaining  immersion,  you  will  un- 
church other  christians — that  it  is  dangerous  and  indecent — that  a 
great  many  good  and  learned  men  have  thought  otherwise — or,  that 
you  are  afraid  of  incurring  the  displeasure  of  those  in  this  world,  whom 
you  ought  to  honor  and  obey.  The  futility  of  these  excuses  must 
be  apparent  to  all.  They  ought  not  to  be  offered  now,  and  they  will 
not  avail  hereafter.  The  Lord  has  left  us  without  excuse.  Baptism 
He  requires  of  all  believers.  It  is  the  first  act  of  obedience,  that  is 
to  follow  faith.  While  we  live  unbaptised,  we  live  in  disobedience. 
And  if  disobedient,  where  is  the  testimony  that  we  please  God? 
Let  us  all  examine  ourselves  whether  we  be  in  the  faith.  And  if, 
after  a  faithful  and  impartial  self-examination,  you  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  you  have  repented  of  your  sins,  and  believed  in  the  Sa- 
viour— I  call  upon  you  to  obey  the  injunction  of  the  text,  "And  now 
why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be  baptised." 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTI 


"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — Matthew  xxviii.  19. 

It  has  been  my  privilege,  this  morning,  to  discuss  the  Mode  of 
baptism.  I  have  endeavored  to  show  wherein  it  consists ;  and  to 
prove  that  there  is  but  one  scriptural  mode,  by  which  it  is  to  be  ad* 
ministered.  It  now  becomes  my  duty  to  consider  who  are  the  pro- 
per  subjects  of  this  holy  ordinance.  Here  again  my  brethren,  there 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  amongst  professed  christians.  They  are 
divided  into  two  great  classes.  The  one  class  believe  that  baptism 
is  to  be  administered  to  believers,  and  to  children:  the  other  class 
believe  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  to  believers.  Epis 
copalians,  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  other  sects  belong  to  the 
former  class — the  latter  is  composed  entirely  of  Baptists.  They 
are  the  little  flock.  They  stand  alone  in  the  world.  They  go 
only  to  the  Word  of  God,  for  their  faith  and  practice  in  this  matter. 
They  utterly  reject  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  of  the  church. 
And  to  a  man  they  contend  that  immersion  is  the  solitary  mode  of 
baptism,  and  that  none  are  fit  subjects  for  baptism,  but  those  who 
furnish  satisfactory  evidence,  that  they  have  exercised  repentance 
towards  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  text  which  I  have  chosen,  is  an  illustration  of  this  great 
truth.  It  was  the  commission  which  Christ  gave  to  his  disciples, 
when  He  was  about  to  ascend  to  heaven.  He  had  finished  the  la- 
bors  of  his  ministry  upon  earth.  He  had  accomplished  the  work 
that  was  given  him  to  do.  His  disciples  were  gathered  around  Him 
for  the  last  time  upon  earth,  to  receive  his  blessing,  and  his  parting 
instructions.  And  He  said,  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them."  Here  you  perceive  that  teaching  was  to 
precede  baptism.  The  word  here  rendered  teach,  is  in  the  Greek, 
malheteuo.  Its  signification  is  to  instruct,  to  impart  knowledge,  so 
as  to  make  disciples.  It  here  means  to  impart  particularly  the  know- 
5 


34 

ledge  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  plan  of  salvation  :  to  endeavor  to  ift* 
stil  into  others  the  piinciples  of  religion  ;  by  which  they  would  be 
niado  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  after  the  reception  of  which,  they 
would  be  prepared  for  christian  baptism.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  the  Greek  article  used  in  connection  with  "all  nations,"  in  this 
text,  is  in  a  different  gender  from  that  which  is  used  in  reference  to 
those  who  were  to  be  baptized.  In  the  former  case  it  is  la,  neuter, 
agreeing  with  eihne— nn  the  latter  case  it  is  tons,  masculine,  agree- 
ing with  matheteis,  or  some  other  masculine  substantive  understood. 
The  truth  and  force  of  this  criticism  will  be  apparent  to  all  who  have 
any  acquaintance  with  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language.  The 
meaning  of  the  commission  then,  is  this,  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  in- 
struct all  nations,  baptising  those  that  become  disciples,  in  the  name 
of  the  Fnther,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 

I  shall  endeavor,  in  the  first  place,  to  show  that  believers  are  the 
Only  fit  subjects  for  baptism,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Word 
of  God.  And  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  all  christians  cannot  agree 
to  take  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  only,  for  their  guide  in  this  matter. 
It  is  this  want  of  agreement  that  leads  to  their  disunion,  and  to  all 
the  differences  and  dissentions  that  prevail  amongst  them.  The 
commission,  as  recorded  by  Mark,  (chap.  xvi.  verses  15,  16,)  is  as 
conclusive  as  the  language  of  the  text,  which  we  have  already  con- 
sidered. The  Saviour  there  says  to  His  disciples,  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  be- 
lieveth,  and  is  baptised,  shall  be  saved;  and  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  Nothing  is  here  said  about  infants,  nor  about 
their. baptism  ;  and  they  surely  would  have  been  mentioned  in  the 
Saviour's  last  command,  if  the  christian  rite  was  intended  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  them.  The  disciples  were  first  to  preach  the  Gospel. 
The  command  is,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature."  To  whom  was  the  Gospel  to  be  preached? 
Evidently  to  those,  who  were  capable  of  receiving  it.  Not  to  in- 
fants;  for  they  could  not  understand  it.  To  whom  was  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  to  be  administered  ?  Unquestionably  to  those  who 
could  comprehend  its  design,  and  be  prepared,  by  the  operations  of 
grace,  for  its  reception — not  to  infants,  for  they  could  not  believe; 
and  the  language  expressly  is,  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptised.'* 
Infants  cannot  believe  :  they  cannot  understand  the  nature,  and  de- 
sign of  baptism;  and  therefore  it  is  not  required  at  their  hands.  And 
yet  we  believe  that  through  the  merits  of  our  Redeemer,  and  by  the 
grace  of  .God,  provision  has  been  made  for  their  salvation — without 
any  reference  to  their  baptism.  Only  those  who  have  arrived  at  the 
y«ars  of  discretion,  and  who  arc  capable  of  exercising  faith,  are 


35 

e&lled  upon  to  believe,  and  be  baptised.  If  they  do  not  believe,  they 
"•hall  be  damned."  But  if  they  believe,  and  refuse  to  be  baptised, 
they  are  guilty  of  disobedience — and  fail  to  evince  their  love  for 
Christ,  by  not  complying  with  one  of  His  first  requisitions.  I  con- 
scientiously believe  that  this  is  a  true  and  scriptural  exposition  of 
this  portion  of  Divine  truth  ;  and  I  also  believe  that  it  will  commend 
itself  to  every  man's  conscience,  in  the  sight  of  God.  , 

It  is  manifest  that  John  the  Baptist  confined  his  baptism  to  adults. 
He  preached,  saying,  ••  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand."  "  But  when  he  saw  many  of  the  Scribes,  and  Pharisees 
corning  to  his  baptism,  he  said  unto  them,  oh  generation  of  vipers, 
who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth 
therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance." — "I  indeed  baptise  you  with 
water  unto  repentance."  This  settles  the  matter;  and  makes  us 
acquainted  with  the  terms  on  which  persons  were  admitted  to  the 
baptism  of  John.  He  baptised  those  who  were  penitents — who  re- 
pented of  their  sins,  who  confessed  their  sins,  who  forsook  their  sins, 
and  whose  desire  it  was  to  bring  forth  in  their  lives  the  fruits 
of  repentance.  Where  will  you  find  any  possible  plea  here  for 
infant  baptism?  Why,  my  hearers,  you  might  as  well  look  for 
the  life  of  Buonaparte  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  or  for  the 
history  of  America  in  the  Psalms  of  David.  If  the  Scriptures 
present  any  foundation  for  the  supposition  that  infants  were  num- 
bered amongst  the  persons  baptised  by  John,  then  J  am  willing  ever 
to  bear  the  character  of  one,  altogether  incapable  of  understanding 
the  plain  meaning  of  language.  An  eminent  Pedo-baptist,  whose 
piety  and  learning  no  one  will  question,  says,  "  It  does  not  appear 
that  any  but  adults  were  baptised  by  John.  Adult  Jews,  professing 
repentance,  and  a  disposition  to  become  the  Messiah's  subjects,  were 
the  only  persons  whom  John  admitted  to  baptism."  Scott's 
Comment,  on  Matt.  iii.  5,  6.  If  John  had  received  infants  to  his 
baptism,  and  had  performed  the  rite  by  sprinkling  as  well  as  im- 
mersing— in  all  kindness  and  charity,  I  ask  the  question,  Would 
such  mighty  efforts  be  made,  in  certain  quarters,  to  unchristianize 
his  baptism,  and  to  confine  him  in  the  dark  dispensation  of  the 
Law  ?     I  trow  not. 

How  satisfactory  is  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  three  thou- 
sand,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost!  "Then  they  that  gladly  received 
the  word  were  baptised."  (Acts  ii.  41.)  Here  you  discover  that 
baptism  was  not  administered  to  persons  indiscriminately.  It  was 
confined  to  a  particular  class — "they  that  gladly  received  the 
word."  What  is  implied  by  gladly  receiving  the  word  ?  Can  an 
infant  gladly  receive  the  word?  Can  a  rebellious  and  impenitent 
sinner  gladly  receive  the  word  ?     Certainly  not.     None  but  a  hum- 


36 

bie  and  penitent  sinner — none  but  a  sincere  and  honest  believer  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  can  gladly  receive  the  word  of  God.  And 
consequently  the  three  thousand,  who  were  baptised  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  were  all  believers — for  the  Scripture  saith,  "  they  that 
gladly  received  *ihe  word  were  baptised;  and  the  same  day  there 
were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 

The  circumstances  attending  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  are  in 
themselves  highly  interesting,  and  have  an  important  bearing  on 
this  discussion.  (Acts  viii.  27 — 40.)  Philip  had  been  expounding 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  and  preaching  Jesus  unto  him.  "  And  as 
they  went  on  their  way,  the  Eunuch  said,  see  here  is  water  ;  what 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptised  ?  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  As  though  he  had  declared, 
here  is  the  condition,  the  necessary  condition,  the  only  condition, 
the  eternal  condition — "if  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart."  It 
is  a  solemn  rite  :  it  is  one  to  which  you  must  submit  as  a  christian  : 
it  is  one  which  requires  a  previous  preparation — the  preparation  of 
a  renewed  heart :  the  vows  of  God  will  be  upon  you  ;  and  sad  and 
awful  will  be  your  state,  if  you  trifle  with,  and  profane  a  holy  ordi- 
nance. But  "  if  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest" 
— it  is  thy  privilege — it  is  thy  duty.  And  the  Eunuch  answered, 
and  said,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  Here 
was  faith— what  we  Baptists  require — he  believed  in  Jesus  Christ. 
And  when  he  had  made  this  profession  of  faith,  Philip  led  him 
down  into  the  water,  and  baptised  him  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  And  the  Eunuch,  when  he  was  baptised,  went  on  his 
way  rejoicing  !    Here  is  an  illustrious  example  of  believers1  baptism. 

The  baptism  of  households  is  frequently  urged  as  a  scriptural  ar« 
gument  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  If  households  were  baptised, 
our  friends  infer  that  infants  were  amongst  them.  But  this  infer- 
ence has  nothing  to  sustain  it,  but  the  traditions  of  men  ;  and  it  has 
everything  to  condemn  it  in  the  word  of  God.  The  case  of  Lydia 
is  sometimes  brought  forward.  (Acts  xvi.  14,  15.)  We  are  informed 
that  the  Lord  opened  her  heart  to  receive  the  things  that  Paul  spake ; 
and  that  she  was  baptised,  and  hor  household.  Is  there  anything 
said  about  children  here?  If  there  is,  I  will  give  up  the  discussion. 
In  the  last  verse  of  this  chapter,  we  read,  "And  they" — that  is, 
Paul  and  Silas — "went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into  the 
house  of  Lydia ;  and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  com- 
forted them,  and  departed."  This  indicates  clearly  the  character 
of  those  who  composed  the  household  of  Lydia :  they  were  brethren — 
that  is,  baptised  believers.  The  learned  Dr.  Whitby,  though  a 
PedO'baptist,  seems  to  be  satisfied  of  this  :  "  And  when  she,  and 
those  of  her  household,  were  instructed  in  the-  christian  faith,  in  the 


37 

nature  of  baptism  required  by  it,  she  was  baptised  and  her  house- 
hold."    See  his  paraphrase  on  the  place. 

The  baptism  of  the  household  of  Stephanas  is  recorded  in  I.  Co- 
rinthians i.  16.  Paul  says,  "And  1  baptised  also  the  household  of 
Stephanas :  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptised  any  other." 
Whether  the  inmates  of  the  house  of  Stephanas,  thus  baptised,  were 
children,  or  adults,  we  learn  from  the  xvi.  chap.  15.  verse  of  the 
&nme  Epistle.  "Ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the 
first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  This  cannot  be  affirmed  of  infants:  and 
we  are  driven  irresistibly  to  the  inference  that  the  house  of  Stepha- 
nas was  composed  of  believers  in  Jesus.  Some  distinguished  Pe- 
do-baptists  have  the  candor  to  acknowledge  this.  The  opinion  of 
one  will  suffice.  "The  family  of  Stephanas  seem  all  to  have  been 
adults  when  they  were  baptised,  for  they  are  said  to  have  devoted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  See  Macknight's  notes 
on  this  passage. 

We  now  come  to  the  baptism  of  the  jailer's  household — Acts  xvi. 
30 — 34.  The  jailer,  it  seems,  had  been  aroused  to  a  sense  of  his 
true  condition  as  a  sinner,  by  the  visible  manifestations  of  the  power 
of  God.  Deeply  convicted  of  sin,  he  cried  out,  "Sirs,  what  must 
I  do  to  be  saved  ?  And  they  said,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And  he 
took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes, 
and  was  baptised;  he  and  all  his  straightway.  And  when  he  had 
brought  them  into  the  house,  he  set  meat  before  them  ;  and  re- 
joiced, believing  in  God  with  all  his  house."  Nothing  need  be  said 
in  illustration  of  this  case.  It  is  so  plain  that  "a  wayfaring  man, 
though  a  fool,  need  not  err  therein."  Here  it  is  expressly  declared 
that  all  the  house  of  the  jailer  believed  in  God — and  it  was  there- 
fore perfectly  right,  in  accordance  with  the  genius  of  Christianity, 
and  with  the  Gospel  commission,  for  them  to  be  baptised.  Whoever 
looks  for  infant  baptism  in  this  passage,  is  acting  the  part  of  the 
man  who  searches  for  a  copper  coin,  in  a  heap  of  the  purest  silver ! 
There  are,  and  always  have  been,  and  always  will  be,  many  house- 
holds in  which  there  are  no  children.  And  therefore  the  argument 
drawn  from  household  baptism,  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  babes,  is 
not  worthy  of  serious  attention.  In  the  language  of  a  learned  wri- 
ter, quoted  by  Pengilly,  "Families  may  be  without  children;  they 
may  be  grown  up,  &c.  So  it  is  a  wild  inference  to  ground  infant 
baptism  upon."     Lawson's  Baptismalogia,  page  92. 

Saul  of  Tarsus,  after  his  sight  was  restored,  and  he  had  received 
the  Holy  Ghost,  arose,  and  was  baptised.     Acts  ix.  17,  18. 


38 

Cornelius,  and  his  friends,  heard  Peter,  received  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  were  baptised.      Acts  x.  44—48. 

The  disciples  at  Ephesus  heard,  and  were  baptised.  Acts  xvL 
32—34. 

At  Samaria,  those  who  believed,  were  baptised,  both  men  and  wo- 
men.    Acts  viii.  12. 

Crispus  and  all  his  house,  and  many  Corinthians,  heard,  believed, 
and  were  baptised — Acts  xviii.  5.  If  infants  were  numbered  amongst 
the  baptised,  is  it  not  unaccountable  that  no  mention  is  made  of 
them? 

Reference  is  frequently  made  to  Matthew  xix.  13,  14,  as  though 
it  favored  the  pretensions  of  infant  baptism.  "Then  were  brought 
unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them  and' 
pray:  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said,  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Marks  adds,  "And  he  took  them  up  in  his 
arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them."  There  is  not  a 
word — there  is  not  the  most  distant  hint ;  nor  even  allusion,  here, 
respecting  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  And  nothing  but  the  weak- 
ness of  their  cause  would  have  led  its  advocates  to  an  appeal  to 
these  verses.  The  infants  came  to  be  blessed  by  Christ,  and  not  to 
be  baptised.  The  language  is  plain  and  explicit.  If  taking  a  child 
into  one's  arms,  and  blessing  it,  constitutes  baptism,  why  then  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  individual  now  addressing  you,  has  baptised  his  child 
more  than  a  hundred  times.  And  I  venture  to  say  that  many  Bap- 
tist parents,  here  to-day,  will  be  found  in  the  same  predicament. 
Look  at  the  passage  again.  "  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them 
not,  to  come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  And 
now  I  ask,  in  the  fear  of  God,  if  you  can,  upon  the  faith  of  that 
passage,  claim  baptism  for  your  children]  It  gives  just  as  much 
authority,  for  bringing  them  to  the  communion  table,  or  for  induct- 
ing them  into  the  sacred  functions  of  the  ministerial  office.  There 
is  not  one  precept,  or  declaration,  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  which  you  can  turn  and  say,  this  teaches  infant  baptism! 
I  challenge  you  to  point  me  to  such  a  passage.  And  if  you  succeed, 
I  promise  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  of  men  ;  and  I  call  upon 
these  sacred  and  venerable  walls,  to  bear  witness— -I  will  immedi- 
ately renounce  my  principles.  I  will  go  farther.  I  have  at  home  a 
beloved,  and  unconscious  child;  whom  I  have  often  blessed,  but 
never  baptised.  I  will  hasten  to  my  home.  These  hands  shall  bap- 
tise  my  child — And,  to  my  dying  day,  1  will  vindicate  the  cause  of 
infant  baptism  ;  which  I  am  now  endeavoring  to  overthrow.  But 
you  will  not  go  to  the  Bible  for  this  proof — you  cannot  go  there. 
You  will  everywhere  find  the  condemnation  of  your  practice  writ- 


39 

\en,  in  characters  deep,  and  indelible.  And  when  you  are  willing  to 
be  guided  only  by  the  Scriptures :  when  you  are  willing  to  give  up 
the  traditions  of  antiquity  ;  then  you  will  be  willing  to  abandon  the 
baptism  of  infants. 

We  will  now  briefly  consider  the  argument  to  which  Pedo-bap. 
lists  resort,  when  they  are  driven  from  the  Bible,  and  to  which  they 
cling  as  their  last  hope.  They  contend  that  baptism  comes  into  the 
place  of  circumcision  :  the  male  children  of  the  Jews  were  all  cir- 
cumcised, and  therefore  the  children  of  christians  are  all  to  be  bap- 
tised.  And  here  we  meet  our  opponents  at  the  very  threshold  of 
the  argument,  and  demand  the  scriptural  proof  of  this  bold  assevera- 
tion.  Alas,  they  cannot  give  it!  The  Lord  has  communicated  no 
such  revelation.  The  Bible  is  silent  upon  the  subject.  And  we 
are  constrained  to  pronounce  it  a  fabrication  of  man.  You  learned 
it  from  the  Church  of  Rome;  and  like  all  the  errors  of  that  apos. 
tate  Church,  it  may  have  its  day  of  existence,  and  of  popularity, 
but  it  is  doomed  to  destruction.  That  the  Jews  circumcised  their 
male  children,  we  readily  admit — for  that  is  a  matter  of  special 
revelation.  But  that  baptism  has  come  into  the  place  of  circumci- 
sion, we  deny — on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  express  authority  in 
the  Scriptures  for  such  a  supposition.  Circumcision  did  indeed 
prevail  amongst  the  Jews — not  however  as  a  church  act,  but  as  a 
national  act.  The  Jews  were  all  circumcised,  and  yet  a  great  part 
of  them  were  abandoned  in  their  principles,  and  in  their  lives.  Per- 
sons good  and  bad,  whether  they  feared  God  or  not,  had  their  chil- 
dren circumcised.  Every  male  descendant  of  Abraham  received 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  not  as  a  seal  that  he  was  a  child  of  God, 
but  as  a  mark  that  he  was  a  Jew — that  he  was  a  son  of  Abraham, 
in  whose  person,  and  for  whose  posterity,  the  rite  was  instituted. 
But  how  different  is  it  with  the  Church  of  Christ !  It  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  Jews — it  is  not  confined  to  the  Greeks.  But  it  is 
composed  of  every  kindred,  and  nation,  and  tongue,  and  people  un- 
der heaven,  who  believe  in  God.  There  is  no  difference  between 
the  Jew,  and  the  Greek,  the  Scythian,  and  the  Barbarian,  the 
Bond,  and  the  Free — but  the  same  God  over  all,  is  rich  in  mercy 
to  all  that  call  upon  him.  And  how  different  is  Christian  baptism 
from  Jewish  circumcision.  It  is  not  a  national  act,  but  it  is  a 
church  act.  It  is  not  a  Jewish  ceremony,  but  it  is  a  Christian  ce- 
remony. It  was  not  instituted  for  the  descendants  of  Abraham, 
but  it  was  instituted  for  the  disciples  of  Christ.  It  is  not  a  rite 
which  is  to  be  confined  to  the  male  children  of  the  Hebrews,  and 
their  proselytes  ;  but  it  is  a  rite  which  is  to  be  administered  to  every 
man,  and  to  every  woman  upon  earth,  who  is  a  believer.     Here  is 


40 

me  only  qualification}  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thctf 
mayest." 

Our  Brethren  seem  to  forget  that  there  is  a  total  difference  be- 
tween the  Jewish  Economy,  and  the  Christian  Economy—between 
the  dispensation  of  the  Law,  and  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel. 
The  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  Law  were  all  abolished 
when  Christ  came — their  fasts,  their  festivals,  and  their  ordinances 
ceased.  The  Apostle  declares  that  Christ  has  removed  the  hand- 
writing  of  ordinances  which  was  against  us,  taking  it  out  of  the  way, 
and  nailing  it  to  His  cross.  We  are  told  that  "  the  law  was  given 
by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  Conse- 
quently He  introduced  an  entirely  Dew  state  of  things.  It  waff 
not  the  old  Abrahamic  Covenant  renewed — the  old  Jewish  Dispen- 
sation remodelled — but  it  was  the  Christian  Church,  a  new  and  holy 
organization,  which  He  built  up  in  the  world.  The  Jewish  Church 
was  composed  of  the  whole  nation,  good  and  bad  :  but  the  Christian 
Church  is  composed  of  spiritual  materials — of  baptised  believers* 
And  therefore  Peter  says,  "Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal 
priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people ;  that  ye  should  show 
forth  the  praises  of  him,  who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness,  into 
his  marvellous  light."  (t.  Peter  ii.  9.)  Now  how  doe?  it  comport 
with  all  this,  to  say  that  a  Jewish  rite  has  been  continued  in  the 
Christian  Church— that  circumcision  is  still  kept  up  in  baptism  7 
This  is  a  palpable  denial  of  the  Word  of  God.  We  are  here  taught 
that  every  previous  dispensation  has  given  way  to  the  dispensation 
of  Christ.  Old  things  have  passed  away  ;  and  all  things  have  be- 
come new.  We  now  have  new  precepts,  new  promises,  new  com- 
mandments, and  new  ordinances. 

If  circumcision  is  thus  to  be  perpetuated  amongst  christians,  it 
seems  to  me  that  consistency  requires  that  you  should  have  various 
rites,  corresponding  with  all  the  ceremonies  of  the  Jews.  You  must 
have  your  fasts,  and  festivals :  your  feasts  of  tabernacles,  of  har- 
vests, and  of  jubilee.  You  must  have  your  incense,  your  burnt- 
offerings,  your  altars,  and  your  sacrifices.  In  a  word,  to  be  consis- 
tent, you  must  become  in  all  respects  christianized  Jews!  What 
would  you  think,  if  you  were  to  see  a  man  build  an  altar,  gather 
wood  for  a  burnt-offering,  and  sacrifice  upon  that  altar  a  calf,  or  a 
lamb — and  if  he  were  to  tell  you  in  justification  of  the  deed,  that  he 
was  sacrificing,  because  the  Jews  used  to  sacrifice  ?  Why,  you 
would  say  that  he  was  making  a  Jew  of  himself.  I  will  leave  this 
respected  audience  to  determine,  whether  those  are  not  in  a  similar 
predicament,  who  sprinkle  their  infants,  because  the  Jews  circum- 
cised theirs. 


In  the  xv.  chapter  of  Acts,  it  is  recorded  thnt  "certain  men  came 
down  from  Judea,  and  taught  the  brethren  that  unless  they  were  cir. 
cumcised,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  they  could  not  be  saved.5' 
After  considerable  disputation  and  dissension,  it  was  determined  that 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  some  others,  should  be  despatched  as  mes- 
aengcrs  to  Jerusalem,  to  consult  the  Apostles  and  elders  respecting 
this  question.  The  church  at  Jerusalem  immediately  assembled  ; 
and,  after  discussing  the  subject,  sent  an  epistle  by  the  hands  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  Judas  surnamed  Barsabas,  and  Silas,  to  the 
Gentiles  in  Antioch,  and  Syria,  and  Cilicia.  In  that  epistle  they 
■ay,  "we  have  heard  that  certain  which  went  out  from  us,  hart 
troubled  you  with  words,  subverting  your  souls,  saying,  ye  must  be 
circumcised,  and  keep  the  law  :  to  whom  we  gave  no  suck  command- 
ment," What  can  be  more  conclusive  than  this?  The  church  in 
Jerusalem  said  in  reference  to  the  Judaising  teachers,  who  insisted 
upon  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  we  gave  no  such  commandment. 
They  thus  virtually  declared  that  the  rite  of  circumcision  was  abol* 
ished.  Now  if  baptism  has  come  into  the  place  of  circumcision,  is 
it  not  most  astonishing  that  this  apostolic  church  said  not  a  word 
on  the  subject,  in  their  letter  to  the  gentile  converts?  The  easiest 
and  the  surest  way  of  calming  their  fears,  and  quieting  their  dissen* 
sions,  would  have  been  to  have  used  language  to  this  effect : 
"  Brethren  you  have  been  deceived  by  false  teachers.  Circumcision 
is  not  required  by  the  christian  dispensation  ;  it  is  abolished,  and 
baptism  is  established  in  the  place  thereof."  This  would  have  been 
all-sufficient — it  would  have  healed  their  divisions,  and  settled  the 
dispute  forever.  But  no  such  communication  was  made — they  gave 
no  such  commandment.  I  beseech  my  Pedo-baptist  brethren  to 
consider  this  point.  It  is  one  of  importance.  When  we  command 
the  baptism  of  infants,  we  do  more  than  the  Apostles  did.  When  wo 
declare  that  the  children  of  Christians  are  to  be  baptised,  because 
the  children  of  Jews  were  circumcised,  we  utter  a  sentiment  that 
would  have  sounded  strange  in  the  ears  of  the  first  Christian  Church, 
planted  in  Jerusalem. 

But  this  practice,  if  founded  on  circumcision,  is  directly  condemned 
in  the  Word  of  God.  Baptism,  you  argue»  is  derived  from  circum- 
cision. Be  it  so.  It  is,  then,  essentially  the  right  that  was-msti. 
tuted  when  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  made.  The  manner  of 
its  observance,  and  the  name,  have  been  changed — but  m  alii  other 
respects  baptism  is  circumcision.  Now  listen  to  what  the-  apostle 
Paul  says!  "Behold,  I,  Paul,  say  untoyou,  that  if  ye  b© eireumeised, 
Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify  again*  to  every  man 
that  is  circumcised,  that  ho  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  For  in 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  an \;tiui.ng,  nor  uncircunv 
6 


42 

cision  ;  but  faith  which  worketh  by  love."  (Galatians  v.  2,  3;  6.) 
According  to  your  own  principles,  this  position  of  the  Word  of  God 
demolishes  your  structure,  and  is  a  solemn  warning  to  the  advocates 
of  infant  baptism.  Oh  my  brethren,  think  seriously  on  the  sub- 
ject! You  are  injuring  yourselves,  you  are  injuring  your  children, 
you  are  injuring  the  cause  of  God,  by  adhering  to  this  practice. 
You  are  destroying  the  spirituality  of  Christianity.  You  are  pro- 
claiming the  superiority  of  a  former  dispensation.  You  are  forsaking 
the  plain  precepts  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  institutions  of  the  Jews. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that  infant  baptism  originated  some  one 
or  two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  when  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  was  in  its  incipient  state;  and  that  it  has  been  and  is  still 
warmly  contended  for  by  many  on  the  ground  that  it  secures  the 
salvation  of  those  who  die  in  infancy,  by  cleansing  them  from  ori- 
ginal sin.  If  lam  able  to  prove  this,  an  important  point  will  be 
gained — and  I  promise  to  prove  it  to-day  before  this  vast  assembly, 
if  there  is  truth  in  witnesses.  None  of  my  witnesses  are  Baptists  : 
they  are  all  Pedo-baptists,  and  no  one  can  object  to  their  testimony. 

I  will  first  give  the  testimony  of  several  learned  and  eminent 
men,  to  the  effect  that  infant  baptism  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible. 

"It  cannot  be  proved  by  the  sacred  Scriptures  that  infant  bap- 
tism  was  instituted  by  Christ,  or  begun  by  the  first  christians  after 
the  apostles."     Luther,  quoted  in  Ped.  Exam.  Vol.  ii.  p.  4. 

"There  is  not  a  single  precept  for,  nor  example  of  this  practice, 
through  the  whole  New  Testament."  Palmer's  answer  to  Priestly 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  7. 

Calvin,  in  his  fourth  book  of  Institutes,  chapter  xvi.,  confesses 
that  it  is  no  where  expressly  mentioned  by  the  evangelists  that  any 
one  child  was  baptized  by  the  apostles. 

"There  is  no  express  precept  or  rule  given  in  the  New  Testament 
for  baptism  of  infants."  Bishop  Burnet,  Expos,  of  the  Articles, 
Article  xxvii. 

"The  baptism  of  infants  is  therefore  named  a  tradition,  because 
it  is  not  expressly  delivered  in  scripture  that  the  apostles  did  baptise 
infants;  nor  any  express  precept  there  found  that  they  should  do 
so."     Dr.  Field,  on  the  Church,  p.  375. 

"If  we  wish  to  ascertain  from  whom  such  an  institution  was  ori- 
ginated, WO  should  say,  certainly  not  from  Christ  himself."  Nean- 
der's  History  of  the  First  Planting  of  the  Christian  Church.  Vol. 
I.  p.  190.  Neander  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  Ecclesiastical  Histo- 
rians.  His  character  as  an  evangelical,  profound,  and  philosophical 
writer,  is  known  to  all  scholars. 

"All  attempts  to  make  out  infant  baptism  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment fail.     It  is  totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic  age, 


43 

and  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  New  Testament."  Pro- 
fessor LaDge  on  Baptism,  p.  101. 

"Infant  Baptism  can  be  supported  neither  by  a  distinct  apostoli. 
cal  tradition,  nor  apostolical  practice."  Baumgarten  Crusius,  Hist. 
of  Theol.  p.  1208. 

Gesenius,  the  celebrated  Hebraist,  being  informed  in  conversa- 
tion that  the  Baptists  in  America  reject  infant  baptism,  and  baptise 
only  adults  on  a  profession  of  their  faith,  remarked,  "that  is  per- 
fectly right,  it  is  according  to  the  Bible."  Christian  Review,  Vol. 
iii.  p"  201. 

"  It  is  a  plain  case  that  there  is  no  express  precept  respecting  in- 
fant baptism  in  our  sacred  writings,  Tho  proof  then  that  it  is  a 
divine  institution  must  be  sought  for  somewhere  else."  Dr.  Wood's 
Lectures,  p.  ii. 

.  These  authorities,  (and  their  number  might  be  greatly  augment- 
ed if  the  time  did  allow,)  will  suffice  to  show  that  the  Baptists  are 
not  alone  in  thinking  that  infant  baptism  has  no  place  in  Scripture. 
Candid  men  of  various  denominations  agree  with  them.  And  after 
listening  to  the  declarations  of  such  learned  men  as  I  have  quoted, 
and  comparing  their  declarations  with  the  Word  of  God  itself,  you 
must  perceive  how  wild  and  extravagant  is  the  course  of  those,  who 
at  all  hazards,  and  against  all  testimony,  preach  up  infant  baptism 
from  the  Bible.  What  could  have  induced  such  men  as  Luther, 
and  Burnet,  and  Neander,  and  Woods,  to  acknowledge  that  infant 
baptism  is  not  taught  in  the  New  Testament?  So  far  from  having 
anything  to  gain,  they  had  everything  to  lose  by  such  a  concession. 
Having  thoroughly  investigated  the  subject,  they  only  gave  utter- 
ance to  the  calm,  sober,  and  unavoidable  convictions  of  their  own 
minds. 

I  have  stated  that  infant  baptism  was  introduced  some  one  or 
two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  and  I  now  bring  forward  my  proof. 
Justin  Martyr,  Irenauis,  Clement,  and  all  the  fathers  who  immedi- 
atcly  succeeded  the  apostles,  are  entirely  silent  on  the  subject.  No 
traces  of  it  are  found  in  the  first  century- — nor  in  the  second,  until 
towards  its  very  close.  Tertullian,  an  African  Bishop,  flourished 
about  the  year  200.  He  is  the  first  writer,  (of  all  the  ancients,) 
who  mentions  infant  baptism  ;  and  he  mentions  it  only  to  condemn 
it.  If  infant  baptism  had  been  kept  up  as  an  ordinance  in  the 
Church  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  why  was  it  not  mentioned  in 
any  of  the  writings  of  the  fathers? — and  when  first  brought  to  view, 
why  was  it  mentioned  in  terms  of  condemnation  ?  The  question  is 
easily  answered.  It  was  a  recent  innovation.  It  was  .just  then 
being  brought  into  the  Church.  "'    ' 


r     44 

Dr.  Barksw,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Tombs,  says-,, 
u  I  believe  and  know  that  there  is  neither  precept  nor  example  in 
Scripture  for  infant  baptism,  nor  any  just  evidence  for  it  for  about 
200  years  after  Christ.  The  truth  is,  I  do  believe  infant  baptism, 
how  or  by  whom  I  know  not,  came  into  the  world  in  the  second 
century,  and  in  the  third  or  fourth  began  to  be  practised,  though  not 
generally." 

Limborch  informs  us  that  "  the  necessity  of  infant  baptism  was 
never  asserted  by  any  Council  before  that  of  Carthage,  held  in  th© 
year  418." 

To  the  same  effect,  Grotius,  in  his  annotations  on  Matt.  xix.  14* 
states  that  "  in  the  Councils  of  the  ancients,  one  shall  find  no  ear* 
lier  mention  of  Pedo-baptism,  than  in  the  Council  of  Carthage.'* 
Thus  although  infant  baptism  began  to  be  introduced  about  the  year 
200,  it  seems  that  it  was  not  publicly  discussed  until  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  in  the  year  413, 

"  In  the  two  first  ages  no  person  was  baptised  till  he  was  instructed 
in  the  faith,  and  tinctured  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  could 
testify  his  own  faith — because  of  those  words  of  Chris!,  '  he  that 
believeth  and  is  baptised'— -tfAere/bre  believing  was  first."  Suicerus, 
in  Ped.  Exam.  Vol.  ii.  p.  76. 

"Infant  baptism  was  not  known  in  the  world  the  two  first  age* 
after  Christ.  In  the  third  and  fourth  it  was  approved  of  by  few. 
At  length  in  the  fifth  and  following  ages  it  began  to  obtain  in  diver? 
gilaces,"  "The  custom  of  baptising  infants  did  not  begin  before 
the  third  age  after  Christ,  and  there  appears  not  the  least  footstep 
of  it  in  the  two  first  centuries."  Carcellacus  at  Supra.  The  writer 
just  quoted  was  a  learned  Divine  of  Geneva,  and  professor  of  Di- 
vinity. 

"  All  the  earlier  traces  of  infant  baptism  are  very  doubtful.  In 
the  fourth  century  its  validity  was  generally  acknowledged.  Au- 
gustine pointed  out  the  removal  of  original  sin,  and  the  sins  of  the 
children,  as  its  definite  object ;  and  through  his  representations  vat 
its  universal  diffusion  promoted."     Bretschneider's  Theology,  p.  469. 

14  Originally  only  adults  were  baptised  :  but  at  the  end  of  the  so- 
<eoad  century  in  Africa,  and  in  the  third  century  generally,  infant 
ibafttism  was  introduced  ;  and  in  the  fourth  century  it  was  theologi- 
&ajky  aiaintained  by  Augustine."     Winer's  Manual  Lectures. 

fr'fka  first  traces  of  infant  baptism  are  found  in  the  Western 
■Chujiwh,  .after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  it  was  the  sub. 
jedt  .of  ^asfcteoversy  in  Proconsular  Asia,  towards  the  end  of  this  cen- 
tury. Though  its  necessity  was  asserted  in  Africa  and  Egypt  in 
the  beginning  ,qf  the  third  century,  it  was  even  to  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  by  do  mean*  universally  observed— least  of  all  in  the 


Eastern  Church.  Notwithstanding  the  recommendation  of  it  by 
the  fathers,  it  never  became  a  general  ecclesiastical  institution  till  the 
age  of  Augustine."     Rheinwald,  p.  313. 

"  An  opinion  prevailed  that  no  one  could  be  saved  without  being 
baptized  ;  and  for  that  reason  the  custom  arose  of  baptizing  infants." 
Salmasius,  in  Ped.  Exam.  Vol.  ii.  p.  128. 

The  first  christian  fathers  who  supported  infant  baptism,  urged  its 
observance  on  the  ground  of  its  cleansing  and  regenerating  influence. 

"  As  far  as  in  us  lies,  no  soul,  if  possible,  is  to  be  lost.  It  is  not 
for  us  to  hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God  ; 
which  rule,  as  it  holds  to  all,  so  we  think  it  more  especially  to  be 
observed  in  reference  to  infants,  to  whom  our  help  and  the  Divine 
mercy  is  rather  to  be  granted  ;  because  by  their  weeping  and  wail* 
ing  at  their  first  entrance  into  the  world,  they  do  intimate  nothing 
10  much  as  that  they  implore  compassion."     Cyprian,  A.  D.  253. 

"  For  no  one  comes  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  by  the  sacra* 
ment  of  baptism.  Infants  that  are  baptised  are  reformed  back 
again  from  wickedness  to  the  primitive  state  of  their  nature."  Am. 
brose,  A.  D.  390. 

u  The  grace  of  baptism  gives  cure  without  pain,  and  fills  us  with 
the  grace  of  the  Spirit.  Some  think  that  the  heavenly  grace  con. 
sists  only  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins :  but  I  have  reckoned  up  ten  ad- 
vantages  of  it.  If  sudden  death  seize  us  before  we  are  baptised, 
though  we  have  a  thousand  good  qualities,  there  is  nothing  to  be  ex. 
peeted  but  hell."  Chrysostom,  A.  D.  398.  These  writers  are  re. 
ferred  to,  and  the  original  passages  given,  in  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap. 
Vol.  I.  ch.  6  ;  and  Vol.  II.  ch.  6. 

It  is  stated  by  some  of  the  writers  above  quoted,  that  infant  bap. 
tism  is  not  mentioned  in  any  Council  of  the  ancients,  until  that  of 
Carthage,  in  418.  Let  us  refer  to  the  Canons  of  that  Council,  and 
see  what  was  their  view  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  as  thus  adminis - 
tared. 

"  Whoever  denies  that  children  just  born  are  to  be  baptised,  or 
says  that  they  are  to  be  baptised  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  de« 
rive  nothing  of  original  sin  from  Adam  which  is  to  be  expiated  by 
the  laver  of  regeneration — let  him  be  accursed."  "Even  little 
children,  who  have  not  yet  been  capable  of  committing  any  sin  in 
themselves,  are  thus  truly  baptised  for  the  remission  of  sins,  that 
what  they  have  derived  by  generation,  may  be  cleansed  by  regene- 
ration." "If  any  one  says  that,  because  the  Lord  has  said,  In  my 
Father's  house  are  mansions,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  there  is  a 
place  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  a  place  anywhere  at  all,  in 
which  children  are  happy  who  leave  this  world  without  baptism, 
(without  which  they  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 


46 

which  is  eternal  life,)  let  him  be  accursed.5'  See  the  Canons  of 
the  Council  of  Carthage  in  Wiggers'  Presentalien  of  Augustitiism 
anil  Pelagianism,  p.  171. 

In  this  famous  Council  Aurelius  of  Carthage,  and  Donatianus  of 
Telepte,  presided.  But  Augustine  was  the  ruling  spirit.  He  guided 
and  influenced  its  discussions — and  he  was  the  father  of  its  canons 
and  decrees.  Mr.  Robinson  very  justly  remarks  that  in  this  instance 
Augustine  ventured  farther  than  Balaam  had  done.  Balaam  said, 
"how  shall  I  curse  whom  God  has  not  cursed?"  But  Augustine 
says,  "whoever  denies  infant  baptism,  let  him  be  accursed.''''  I 
respect  the  great  abilities,  the  fervent  piety,  and  the  eminent  ser- 
vices of  this  christian  father — and  I  do  not  feel  that  it  is  a  breach 
of  true  charity  to  say  that,  in  this  case,  he  was  a  false  prophet ! 

Listen  again  to  what  Augustine  says  in  reference  to  the  efficacy 
of  baptism  :  "The  baptism  of  infants,  as  well  as  of  adults,  is  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sin.  Children  have  indeed  committed  no  actual 
sins,  yet  by  original  sin,  they  are  under  the  power  of  the  devil,  from 
which  they  are  freed  by  baptism.  Hence  christian  children,  who 
die  before  baptism,  no  more  escape  positive  punishment  in  the  future 
life,  than  do  all  who  are  not  christians."  Wiggers'  Aug.  and  Pel. 
p.  268.  These  are  the  opinions  of  the  man  who  first  theologically 
maintained  infant  baptism,  and  through  whose  influence  its  general 
diffusion  was  promoted.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  Augustine 
contended  as  strenuously  for  infant  communion  as  he  did  for  infant 
baptism.  "  He  tells  us  that  the  church  held  that  both  ordinances 
were  saving,  and  necessary  to  eternal  life  ;  and  on  the  ground  of 
this  supposed  saving  quality,  he  informs  us  that  the  church  viewed 
them  both  as  traditions  from  the  apostles."  Chapin  on  Baptism, 
p.  4.  Cyprian,  A.  D.  253,  who  first  defended  the  practice  of  in- 
fant baptism,  was  no  less  zealous  and  strenuous  in  the  defence  of 
infant  communion. 

According  to  the  Church  of  England  Catechism,  the  child  is 
taught  to  say,  "in  my  baptism,  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ, 
a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  After 
sprinkling  an  infant,  the  minister  is  enjoined  to  return  thanks  for 
its  regeneration  !  !  !  See  Episcopal  Prayer  Book,  p.  159,  Edition 
of  1830 — in  which  the  following  language  occurs,  "  We  yield  thee 
hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  re- 
generate this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine 
own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  Holy 
Church." 

"As  to  the  grounds  of  infant  baptism;  if  infants  are  guilty  of 
original  sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  :  seeing,  in 
the  ordinary  way,  they  cannot  be  saved  unless  this  be  washed  away 


47 

by  baptism."  Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  261-— published  by  order  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Denomination.  As  will  soon 
appear,  these  are  essentially,  and  indeed  literally,  the  views  of  Mr. 
John  Wesley. 

That  writer  says,  "I  believe,  till  I  was  about  ten  years  old,  I 
had  not  sinned  away  that  'washing  of  the  Holy  Ghost'  which  was 
given  me  in  baptism."      Wesley's  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  70. 

Hear  what  he  says  still  farther,  as  to  the-  efficacy  of  this  ordi* 
nance:  "What  are  the  benefits  we  receive  bv  baptism,  is  the  next 
point  to  be  considered.  And  the  first  of  these  is,  the  washing  away 
the  guilt  of  original  sin,  by  the  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ's 
death.  The  virtue  of  this  free  gift,  the  merits  of  Christ's  life  and 
death,  are  applied  to  us  in  haptism.  He  gave  Himself  for  the  Church, 
that  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water 
by  the  word  ;  namely,  in  baptism,  the  ordinary  instrument  of  our 
justification.'''  "By  baptism,  we  who  were  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,  are  made  the  children  of  God.  And  this  regeneration,  which 
our  church  in  so  many  places  ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than 
barely  being  admitted  into  the  church,  though  commonly  connected 
therewith  ;  heing  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  we  are 
made  the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace.  This  is  grounded 
on  the  plain  words  of  our  Lord,  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of 
water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
By  water  then,  as  a  means,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are  regene- 
rated or  born  again."  "As  to  the  grounds  of  it :  If  infants  are 
guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism ;  seeing, 
in  the  ordinary  way,  they  cannot  be  saved,  unless  this  be  washed  away 
by  baptism.  Indeed  where  it  cannot  be  had,  the  case  is  different ; 
but  extraordinary  cases  do  not  make  void  a  standing  rule.  This 
therefore  is  our  first  ground.  Infants  need  to  be  washed  from  ori- 
ginal  sin  ;  therefore  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism."  Wesley's 
Works,  Vol.  vi.  pages  14,  15,  16.  Let  these  extracts  speak  for 
themselves.  It  is  altogether  unnecessary  that  they  should  receive 
either  note  or  comment. 

Similar  quotations  might  be  given  from  multitudes  of  Pedo-baptist 
writers.  But  I  forbear.  I  have  produced  my  witnesses,  and  here 
I  am  willing  to  rest  my  cause.  If  many  of  the  warmest  friends 
and  supporters  of  infant  baptism  acknowledge  that  it  has  no  place 
in  the  Scriptures — if  others  admit  that  it  was  introduced  two  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ — if  its  first  champions  maintained  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  essential  to  the  salvation  of  those  dying  in  in- 
fancy — and  if,  over  a  considerable  portion  of  the  christian  world,  it 
is  oven  now  believed  to  be  a  regenerating  ordinance,  a  washing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost — I  say,  if  these  things  be  so,  it  should  not  be  matter 


of  surprise  that  the  Baptists  have  set  their  faces  steadily  and  sternly 
against  it — and  they  ought  not  to  he  accused  of  giving  way  to  a 
sectarian  and  uncharitable  spirit,  when  they  condemn  it  as  unserip. 
tural,  as  subversive  of  gospel  truth,  and  as  savouring  of  the  Roman 
apostacy. 

I  will  now  offer  a  few  reasons  why  we  are  opposed  to  infant 
baptism.  And  the  time  already  consumed  In  this  discussion,  ren- 
ders  it  desirable  that  my  concluding  remarks  should  be  brief. 

1.  We  are  opposed  to  infant  baptism  because  it  is  not  taught  in 
the  Scriptures.  This  has  been  already  proved,  and  this  is  an  all- 
sufficient  reason  why  it  should  be  resisted.  The  Word  of  God  is,  or 
should  be,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  amongst  christians. 
If  you  once  yield  this  principle,  you  open  a  flood-gate  for  ten  thou* 
■and  errors  and  abominations  to  flow  into  the  Church.  We  are  safe 
from  superstition  and  error  only  while  we  cling  to  the  Bible  You 
■ee  the  truth  of  this  remark  illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  They  have  long  since  ceased  to  acknowledge  the 
Bible  as  their  sole  rule  and  directory,  and  followed  the  traditions  of 
their  Fathers,  the  decrees  of  their  Councils,  and  the  laws  of  their 
Church.  And  what  has  been  the  result?  As  a  body,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  are  grossly  superstitious  in  their  faith  and  practice. 
They  ore,  in  many  respects,  no  better  than  the  Heathen.  They 
have  made  a  God  of  the  Pope— they  have  made  saints  of  some  men 
who  manifested  the  spirit  of  demons— they  buy  and  sell  the  souls  of 
men  with  the  pelf  of  this  world— they  worship  images— they  pray 
to  the  angels — and,  when  countenanced  by  the  civil  authority,  they 
persecute  and  destroy,  with  fire  and  sword,  all  christians  who  dare 
to  question  their  infallibility,  and  to  dispute  their  high  ecclesiastical 
pretensions.  All  this  results  from  the  fact  that  they  have  forsaken 
the  Bible.  One  of  their  first  acts  in  forsaking  the  Bible,  (for,  al- 
though the  Pope  was  not  actually  created  for  some  hundreds  of 
years  after,  the  Catholic  Church  was  then  in  its  incipient  state,  and 
the  "  mystery  of  iniquity"  had  begun  to  work— I  say,  one  of  their 
first  acts,)  was  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism.  Some  ages  after, 
they  introduced  the  baptism  of  bells — which  practice  they  continue 
to  the  present  day.  And  I  would  respectfully  ask,  where  is  the 
•difference  between  them?  Both  rest  upon  tradition.  Ask  a  Ro- 
manist, whence  he  derives  his  baptism  of  bells? — and  he  will  reply 
by  asking  you  the  origin  of  infant  baptism.  And  he  will  then  inform 
you  that  both  are  derived  from  one  source,  not  from  the  Scriptures, 
but  from  the  decrees  and  traditions  of  his  church  !  In  so  saying, 
he  speaks  the  truth.  You  cannot  disprove  it.  You  will  have  no 
argument  with  which  to  meet  his  assertion.  All  the  argument  is 
on  his  side,     And  in  the  end  you  will  have  to  admit,  either  that  in- 


fant  baptism  is  a  profanation  of  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  or 
that  it  is  a  good  and  christian  ordinance  simply  because  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  teaches  that  it  is  so!  Oh,  how  much  better  it  is 
to  go  to  the  Bible,  and  learn  there  that  we  are  to  consecrate  our  chil- 
dren to  the  Lord,  not  by  baptising  them,  but  by  endeavoring  to 
bring  them  up  in  His  nurture  and  admonition  !  And  when  they  have 
arrived  at  a  proper  age,  and  have  believed  in  Christ,  then  let  them 
be  baptised — for  the  Saviour  has  said,  not  he  that  is  merely  bap- 
tised, but  "he  that  believeih,  and  is  baptised,  shall  be  saved." 

2.  We  are  opposed  to  infant  baptism,  because  it  is  an  ordinance 
of  man.  If  it  is  not  enjoined  in  the  Bible,  and  if  it  originated  200 
years  after  Christ,  it  is  certainly  an  ordinance  of  man — and  if  it  ia 
an  ordinance  of  man,  the  christian  ought  certainly  to  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  ancient  ob- 
servance of  infant  communion.  All  readers  of  Church  History 
know  that  it  began  to  prevail  about,  or  a  little  after,  the  time  of 
the  first  mention  of  infant  baptism.  Infants  were  made  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.*  Having  been  baptised,  they  were  regarded 
as  members  of  the  church ;  and  it  was  thought  that  communion 
ought  to  succeed  baptism.  Here  was  one  evil  growing  out  of  an- 
other :  here  was  one  error  following  another — because  they  had  in- 
troduced into  the  church  a  human  ordinance.  If  a  man  has  a  right 
to  introduce  one  ordinance,  he  has  a  right  to  introduce  another. 
And  if  he  has  a  right  to  introduce  ordinances  of  his  own,  it  follows 
that  he  has  a  right  to  introduce  his  own  doctrines,  and  his  own  prin- 
ciples. If  this  be  true,  farewell  virtue!  farewell  religion  !  farewell 
holy  Gospel  of  God  ! — for  thou  canst  not  prevail,  where  the  ordi- 
nances and  the  doctrines  of  men  predominate.  Man  has  no  business 
to  interfere  with  the  duties  of  religion.  He  is  not  to  command,  but 
to  obey.  He  is  not  to  teach,  but  to  be  taught.  He  is  not  to  origi- 
nate doctrines  and  ordinances,  but  he  is  to  receive  the  doctrines, 
and  to  keep  the  ordinances  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  they  are  taught  in 
the  Gospel.  Wo  to  that  man  who  adds  to,  or  takes  from,  the  com- 
mandments of  this  holy  volume  !  "  God  shall  take  away  his  part 
out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things 
which  are  written  in  this  book."     Revelation,  xxii.  19. 

3.  We  object  to  infant  baptism  because  it  can  do  our  children  no 
good.  I  should  as  soon  administer  baptism  to  an  object  destitute  of 
life,  as  to  an  infant.  Do  you  ask,  why  ?  Because  they  are  equally 
insensible,  so  far  as  the  duties  and  demands  of  religion  are  concerned, 

*  See  Mosheim'a  Ch.  Hist.  Vol.  I.  p.  206— where  the  following  writers  are  re- 
ferred to,  Mayer,  de  Eucharisda  Infantum ,'  and  Zornius,  Histor.  Eucharist, 
Infantum. 
7 


50 

and  baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  to  subjects  who  are  capable 
of  thinking,  of  feeling,  and  of  believing.  Many  persons  still  believe 
in  baptismal  regeneration.  As  I  have  already  shown,  some  return 
thanks  for  the  regeneration  of  a  child  at  its  baptism ;  and  others 
say  that  ordinarily,  persons,  dying  in  infancy  are  not  saved,  unless 
they  have  been  baptised.  But  the  Baptists  cordially  detest,  and 
loudly  condemn  this  doctrine.  They  are  often  accused  of  relying 
too  much  upon  baptism.  But  the  accusation  applies  only  to  those 
by  whom  it  is  brought.  We  say  that  baptism  is  good  in  its  place : 
it  comes  after  faith  :  it  is  to  be  administered,  precisely  in  the  scrip- 
tural mode,  to  every  one  that  believes.  But  they  say  that  it  is  good 
in  its  place,  and  out  of  its  place  :  before  faith,  and  after  faith  ;  by 
immersion,  by  sprinkling,  or  by  pouring.  And  so  great  is  their 
faith  in  its  marvellous  efficacy,  that  they  apply  it  to  their  children. 
But  of  what  benefit  is  it  to  the  child?  Does  it  change  his  heart? 
No,  Does  it  soften  his  temper?  No.  Does  it  infuse  faith  into  his 
soul?  No.  Does  it  give  him  any  new  principles?  No,  Does  it 
render  it  probable  that  he  will  be  more  apt  to  become  a  christian,  in 
after  life,  than  other  children  ?  No-  Where  then,  in  the  name  of 
religion,  and  of  common  sense,  is  the  benefit  that  he  derives  from 
it  ?     Let  Pedo-baptists  reply. 

4.  We  are  opposed  to  infant  baptism  because  it  does  a  positive  in- 
jury to  the  cause  of  God,  and  to  the  souls  of  men.  Persons  are  thus 
introduced  into  the  church,  who  have  no  business  there ;  and  it  is 
made  to  consist,  in  a  great  measure,  of  unconscious  babes,  and  of 
unconverted  men,  I  am  aware  that  the  reply  may  be  made  that  al- 
though infants  are  sprinkled,  they  are  not  regarded,  properly  speak- 
ing,  as  members  of  the  church,  until  they  arrive  at  years  of  discre- 
tion, and  join  for  themselves.  But  look  at  matters  as  they  really 
exist.  Baptism  is  either  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
Church,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  then  no  persons  who  have  been 
baptised  are  members — but  if  it  is,  it  follows  that  all  are  members 
who  have  been  baptised,  whether  men,  or  women,  or  children.  And 
Pedo-baptists  act  upon  this  principle.  There  are  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  communicants  in  various  Pedo-baptist  churches,  who 
make  no  pretensions  to  a  change  of  heart.  This  is  a  grievous  evil. 
Whence  did  it  originate  ?  It  came  from  Pedo-baptism.  They  were 
sprinkled  when  they  were  children  ;  they  were  brought  up  to  regard 
themselves  as  members  of  the  church,  and  they  have  continued  such 
ever  since.  The  abominable  tenets  of  Unitarianism  and  Univer- 
salism  are  extensively  prevalent  in  the  northern  portion  of  these 
United  States.  If  you  ask  their  origin,  we  reply  that  their  advo- 
cates, for  the  most  part,  came  originally  from  Pedo-baptist  churches. 
They  were  sprinkled  in  infancy— and  afterwards  looked  upon  them- 


K 


I 


selves  as  christians,  although  they  knew  nothing  of  a  change  of 
heart.  In  this  state  they  were  prepared  for  the  reception  of  the 
most  revolting  and  ruinous  errors.  And  it  was  natural  for  them  to 
embrace  doctrines  which  elevate  and  dignify  human  nature,  how- 
ever dishonoring  they  may  he  to  God.  In  some  instances,  a  minis- 
ter and  his  whole  church  have  gone  over  to  the  Unitarians.*  These 
facts,  besides  others  that  might  be  presented,  show  some  of  the  fruits 
of  infant  baptism.  It  has  been  baneful  in  its  influence  over  the 
Church,  ever  since  it  came  into  the  world.  It  has  deceived  many 
thousands  of  souls,  and  led  them,  in  a  fatal  security,  down  to  the 
chambers  of  eternal  death.  Oh  my  hearers,  beware  lest  your  chil- 
dren become  the  ruined  victims  of  this  great  destroyer  ! 

5.  We  object  to  infant  baptism  because  it  is  without  meaning. 
There  is  a  vast  amount  of  meaning  in  the  immersion  of  a  professed 
believer.  He  thus  takes  upon  him  the  christian  profession.  He  thus 
proclaims  his  renunciation  of  the  world.  And  by  this  act  he  says,  I 
am  dead  and  buried  to  sin,  and  I  will  arise  to  newness  of  life.  But 
there  is  no  such  meaning  as  this  in  infant  baptism.  The  child  un- 
derstands neither  its  nature,  nor  design.  He  cannot  comprehend 
the  obligation  it  imposes,  nor  the  solemn  vow  of  dedication  to  God 
it  involves.  He  will  manifest  surprise  and  alarm  during  its  infliction  : 
he  will  forget  it  the  next  moment;  and  in  after  life  he  will  know 
nothing  of  it,  unless  he  is  told.  Does  this  look  like  an  institution  of 
the  Saviour?  Does  this  look  like  an  ordinance  of  Ilim,  who  spake 
as  never  man  spake?  Is  this  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel?  Is  this  one  of  the  revelations  of  the  Christian  Dispensa- 
tion ?  If  it  is,  the  individual  now  addressing  you,  declares  that  he, 
for  one,  has  no  eyes  to  see,  no  ears  to  hear,  no  mind  to  understand— 
he  is  as  blind  as  mid-night,  as  deaf  as  the  grave,  as  senseless  as  the 
pale  and  silent  corpse,  that  has  been  shrouded  in  the  white  garments 
of  death,  and  deposited  within  the  narrow  limits  of  the  tomb? 

I  will  conclude  the  exercises  in  which  we  have  been  engaged,  by 
reading  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  a  man  of  solid  learning  and  deep 
piety,  who  was  once  a  Pedo-baptist,  but  from  the  convictions  of 
duty,  became  a  Baptist. 

"  Marietta,  June  28,  1838. 

"  Perhaps  you  know  1  have  preached  for  about  two  years  past  to  a 
Presbyterian  church  in  the  country.  Some  eighteen  months  ago, 
an  elder  of  that  church  became  a  Baptist.  On  the  occasion  of  his 
baptism,  a  sermon  was  preached  by  Rev.  Hikam  Gkak,  the  Baptist 
minister  in  Marietta.     This  sermon  disturbed  several  members  of 

*  The  author  lias  been  recently  informed  that  Hut  u  bub^aulially  the  history  of 
the  Unitarian  Church  in  Charleston,  So.  Ca, 

i 


my  church,  and  the  session  requested  me  to  preach  on  baptism,  in 
reply.  I  declined,  saying  the  best  way  to  manage  the  excitement 
was,  totally  to  disregard  it;  pleading  my  duties  in  college,  <kc. 
Soon  the  session  applied  to  me  a  second  time,  insisting  that  I  must 
preach  on  the  subject ;  several  members  of  the  church  were  in 
trouble,  and  a  discourse  must  be  delivered.  Finding  that  the  interest 
in  the  subject  was  not  likely  to  die  by  neglect  on  my  part,  I  told  the 
church  I  would  prepare  a  discourse  as  soon  as  practicable,  and  begged 
them  to  remain  quiet,  till  they  should  hear  what  I  might  have  to 
say. 

"Thus  compelled  to  write,  I  determined  to  go  into  an  original 
investigation  of  the  whole  matter,  proceeding  just  as  if  I  had  never 
heard  or  read  anything  on  either  side,  and  endeavoring  with  a  spirit 
of  candid  and  prayerful  inquiry,  to  seek  after  the  mind  of  Christ. 
I  began  my  researches  by  reading  Professor  Stuart  on  baptizo,  the 
ablest  Pedo-baptist  work  on  the  philology  of  the  subject.  The  inquiry 
was,  what  does  Christ  mean,  when  he  commands  his  ministers  to 
baptise?  I  was  soon  astonished  to  find  in  Stuart's  investigation, 
proof  so  strong  that  the  word  in  its  literal,  ordinary  sense,  universally 
means  to  immerse,  plunge,  or  dip.  It  looked  as  if,  with  this  fact 
before  him,  the  learned  Professor  ought  to  have  become  a  Baptist. 
I  was  alarmed,  and  would  have  given  up  the  inquiry,  but  could  not. 
I  laid  aside  Stuart,  and  entered  upon  an  investigation  of  the  origi- 
nal Scriptures,  relative  to  the  language  used  respecting  the,  ordi- 
nance. I  also  examined  Josephus,  and  the  classics,  so  far  as  I 
had  the  means.  The  further  1  prosecuted  my  inquiries,  the  stronger 
was  the  evidence  in  favor  of  Baptist  views.  Thus  passed  some 
months.  The  people  had  become  tired  of  asking  after  my  sermon 
on  baptism,  but  my  conscience  would  not  suffer  me  to  abandon  tho 
investigation.  I  therefore  continued  to  apply  to  it,  as  other  duties 
permitted,  all  my  powers,  till  I  was  compelled  to  admit,  as  a  philolo- 
gist and  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  that  immersion,  and  that  only,  is 
the  baptism  which  Christ  enjoins. 

"Afterwards  I  took  up  infant  baptism,  and  here  I  found  myself 
in  clouds  and  darkness.  I  wandered  about  in  the  fogs  with  which 
writers  have  shrouded  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  the  connection  be- 
tween the  Old  and  the  New  Dispensations,  the  substitution  of 
modern  for  ancient  rites  and  ordinances,  the  obscure  passages  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  bewildered  and  perplexed — all,  ns  I  now 
believe,  because  I  would  not  trust  to  the  Word  of  God,  to  guide  me 
to  Godys  Institutions.  I  conversed  with  my  Pedo-baptist  friends,  I 
prayed  and  wept,  and  groaned.  I  would  lay  down  the  subject  for 
weeks,  then  resume  it,  till  some  three  or  four  months  ago,  I  was 


53 

obliged,  in  tho  fear  of  God.  to  conclude,  that  none  but  believers  in 
Jesus  have  a  right  to  the  ordinances  of  Jesus. 

"  I  Say  no  claim  to  infallibility,  but  if  I  am  wrong,  I  am  conscien- 
tiously so — I  am  so  after  a  most  laborious  and  protracted  search  for 
truth.  I  have  acted  aleo  in  opposition  to  all  the  prejudices  of  early 
years— of  classical  and  theological  study ;  prejudices  confirmed  by 
twelve  years'  connection  with  a  Pedo-baptist  church,  during  six  of 
which  I  acted  as  a  minister  of  Christ.  And  not  only  my  church 
relations,  but  all  my  literary  associations,  my  family  connections, 
and  my  temporal  interests  have  combined  to  withhold  me  from  the 
result  to  which  I  have  come.  These  I  cheerfully  sacrifice  to  my 
convictions  of  truth  and  duty."     See  Jewett  On  Baptism,  p.  12. 

And  now,  Brethren,  I  have  discharged  the  duty  assigned  me.  I 
have  proclaimed  honestly  and  plainly  what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth. 
And  permit  me  in  concluding,  to  exhort  you  to  search  the  Scrip* 
tures,  that  ye  may  know  whether  these  things  be  so.  "  I  commend 
you  to  God,  and  to  the  word  of  his  grace,  which  is  able  to  build  you 
up,  and  to  give  you  an  inheritance  amongst  all  them  that  are  sanc- 
tified. And  may  the  Lord  baptise  us  all  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
sanctify  us  through  His  Word,  which  is  truth,  and  prepare  us  for 
that  inheritance  which  is  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth 
not  away !    Amen. 


The  author  has  staled  more  than  once,  in  the  course  of  the  fore- 
going discussion,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  in  its  inci' 
pient  state,  when  infant  baptism  made  its  appearance,  at  the  close 
of  the  second  century,  of  in  the  beginning  of  the  third.  Ashe  has 
been  gravely  charged  with  manifesting  an  ignorance  of  Church 
History,  by  "talking  of  the  incipiency  of  Roman  Catholicism,  so 
long  before  the  Pope  was  really  crowned,  and  while  the  Church  was 
yet  pure"(?)  he  has  thought  it  desirable  to  insert  a  little  testimony 
here,  on  the  subject. 

All  Ecclesiastical  Historians  of  any  note  admit  that  many  of  the 
corruptions  of  "the  man  of  sin"  were  introduced  amongst  christians 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries — and  some  contend  that  the 
church  began  to  decline  in  -purity  even  at  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury. Now  if  we  can  prove  that  other  errors,  which  peculiarly  dis- 
tinguish the  Roman  Church,  originated  about  the  time  of  the  intro- 
duction of  infant  baptism — we  are  surely  warranted  to  say  that  thai 
church  was  then  in  its  incipient  state.  Milner  says,  (in  his  Church 
Hist.  Cent.  ii.  chap,  ix,)  "a  dark  shade  is  enveloping  these  divine 
glories,  (the  glories  of  the  christian  religion,  as  exhibited  in  the 
Jives  of  its  professors.)  The  Spirit  of  God  is  grieved  already  by  the 
ambitious  intrusions  of  self-righteousness,  argumentative  refine- 
ments, and  pharisaic  pride;  and  though  it  be  more  common  to  repre- 
sent the  sensible  decay  of  godliness  as  commencing  a  century  later, 
to  me  it  seems  already  begun." 

The  testimony  of  Mosheim  is  more  explicit,  and  is  abundantly 
corroborative  of  our  position.  Take  for  instance,  the  following  ro- 
marks  concerning  the  ceremonies  used  in  the  second  century — 
"There  is  no  institution  so  pure  and  excellent  which  the  corruption 
and  folly  of  man  will  not  in  time  alter  for  the  worse,  and  load  with 
additions  foreign  to  its  nature  and  original  design.  Such,  in  a  par- 
ticular manner,  was  the  fate  of  Christianity.  In  this  (the  second,). 
century,  many  unnecessary  rites  and  ceremonies  were  added  to 
the  christian    worship,  the   introduction  of  which  was  extremely 


m 


ftensivtj   to  wise   and   good  men.     These   changes,  while   febey 


55 

destroyed  the  beautiful  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  were  naturally 
pleasing  to  the  gross  multitude,  who  are  more  delighted  with  the 
pomp  and  splendour  of  external  institutions,  than  with  the  native 
charms  of  rational  and  solid  piety,  and  who  generally  give  little 
attention  to  any  objects  but  those  which  strike  their  outward 
senses."     Mosheim's  Ch.  Hist.  Vol.  1,  page  196. 

"  The  comparison  of  the  christan  oblations  with  the  Jewish  vic- 
tims and  sacrifices,  produced  a  multitude  of  unnecessary  rites,  and 
was  the  occasion  of  introducing  that  erroneous  notion  of  the  eucha* 
rist,  which  represents  it  as  a  real  sacrifice,  and  not  merely  as  a  com- 
memoration of  that  great  offering  which  was  once  made  upon  the 
cross  for  the  sins  of  mortals."  (Mosheim  Vol.  1.  page  199.)  Per- 
sons of  common  information  know  that  this  is  one  of  the  grand 
abominations  of  Popery- — and  this,  according  to  the  writer  just  quo- 
ted, was  introduced  in  the  second  century. 

"  A  great  part  of  the  service  of  the  church  in  this  (the  second) 
century,  had  a  certain  air  of  the  heathen  mysteries,  and  resembled 
them  considerably  in  many  particulars."  "They  administered 
milk  and  honey  to  such  as  were  newly  received  into  the  church, 
showing  them,  by  this  sign,  that  by  their  baptism  they  were  born 
again,  and  were  bound  to  manifest  the  simplicity  and  innocence  of 
(infants  in  their  lives  and  conversations."  (Mosheim,  Vol.  I.  page 
•200.)     What  is  this,  if  it  is  not  Popery  begun  ? 

*'  AUter  baptism,  they  received  the  sign  of  the  cross,  were  anointed, 
;and  by  prayers  and  imposition  of  hands,  were  solemnly  commended 
to  the  mercy  of  God,  and  dedicated  to  his  service;  in  consequence 
of  which  they  received  milk  and  honey,  which  concluded  the  cere- 
mony." (Mosheim  Vol.  I.  page  207.)  If  this  is  not  the  incipiency 
of  RG%nan  Catholicism,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  where  it  is  to  be 
sought?  If  we  go  into  the  third  century,  we  find  the  origin  of 
jexorcigjmsi  and  spells  of  various  kinds— of  celibacy,  of  penance,  and 
many  other  human  inventions.  And  these  abominations  continue 
to  increase  from  age  to  age,  until  the  Pope  of  Rome  is  crowned 
universal  Bishop.  And  then  we  behold  Popery  in  its  manhood, 
firmly  established,  and  swaying  over  Christendom  its  bloody  and 
abominable  sceptre! 

The  author  thinks  he  has  said  enough  to  prove  his  position — that 
at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism,  in  the  close  of  the 
second  ,eentury,  the  Eoinan  Catholic  Church  was  in  its  incipient 
state* 


i 


